Clint D. Watkins v. State, 383 P.3d 1080

Appellant Clint D. Watkins was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of his daughter based principally on her testimony; if believed, the evidence supported convictions.
The daughter (CW) moved to her aunt and uncle’s home and later accused Appellant of two incidents of sexual intrusion in winter 2013; she reported the abuse after beginning counseling in February 2015.
Defense theory: CW was angry, vindictive, and fabricated the accusations to escape Appellant’s house and gain a more comfortable life with her aunt and uncle.
Defense emphasized CW’s motive to lie (anger over family circumstances, chores, and losing contact with her younger brother) in opening and closing argument.
In rebuttal the prosecutor responded to that theory, arguing reasonable inferences from the evidence and using rhetorical questions suggesting how jurors might address defense contentions; defense objected that the prosecutor invaded the jury’s province.
The district court overruled the objection; jury convicted on both counts and Appellant appealed claiming prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did prosecutor’s rebuttal comments constitute prosecutorial misconduct by invading the jury’s province?	Prosecutor improperly told jurors what to say, think, and how to deliberate, invading the jury’s role.	Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from the evidence and used rhetorical devices in rebuttal; comments were responsive to defense argument.	Court held no prosecutorial misconduct; statements were permissible rhetorical argument and did not improperly instruct jurors.

Budig v. State, 222 P.3d 148 (Wyo. 2010) (standard of review for prosecutorial misconduct claims in closing argument)
Trujillo v. State, 44 P.3d 22 (Wyo. 2002) (approving ABA standards limiting improper argument by prosecutors)
Wilks v. State, 49 P.3d 975 (Wyo. 2002) (rhetorical statements in argument not improper when reasonably grounded)
Armstrong v. State, 826 P.2d 1106 (Wyo. 1992) (prosecutor afforded great latitude in argument)
Sullivan v. State, 247 P.3d 879 (Wyo. 2011) (reversal only if reasonable probability that outcome would have been more favorable absent error)