Daves v. State
2011 WY 47
Wyo.2011Background
- Daves was convicted on 12 counts for kidnapping and sexual assault of his wife following a jury trial.
- On appeal, Daves challenges the district court’s written definition of 'used a firearm' given during jury deliberations.
- Daves also argues he was denied the constitutional right to be present when supplemental jury instructions were given.
- The State sought to prove four counts of first-degree sexual assault under a theory that threats caused the victim’s submission.
- The district court instructed on 'used a firearm' using an ALR-based definition later discussed in Bailey but not objected to by defense.
- The court ultimately affirmed all convictions, finding no plain error and sufficient evidence for the sexual assault convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in instructing 'used a firearm'? | Daves: instruction misdefines use of firearm. | Daves: Bailey controls; plain error. | No reversible plain error; instruction acceptable. |
| Was Daves denied presence during supplemental instructions? | Daves: must be present for law questions. | Daves: not required for law discussions. | Not reversible error; not prejudicial. |
| Was there sufficient evidence for first-degree sexual assault? | State: threats to anyone sufficed; multiple theories allowed. | Daves: no proof of threats to boyfriend or self valid. | Sufficient evidence to support all four counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (use requires active employment of firearm; mere possession not enough)
- Maupin v. State, 694 P.2d 720 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1985) (presence at jury instructions; limits of right to be present)
- Seeley v. State, 959 P.2d 170 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1998) (presence during jury instruction; open court preferred)
- Tanner v. State, 57 P.3d 1242 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2002) (multiple theories of an offense require sufficient evidence for each)
- Adams v. State, 79 P.3d 526 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003) (statutory language permits proof of 'anyone' when threat shown)
- Bush v. State, 908 P.2d 963 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995) (when statute has alternatives, must prove each supported theory)