435 P.3d 368
Wyo.2019Background
- Plaintiff: Two pregnant patients (K.L. and K.C.) accused Dr. Paul Harnetty, an OB/GYN in Casper, of sexual assaults during prenatal exams (manual stimulation, digital anal penetration, groping, and inappropriate comments).
- K.L. testified assaults occurred during cervical checks and other prenatal visits; she continued seeing Harnetty because of perceived high‑risk pregnancy and insurance/access limits.
- K.C. testified Harnetty rubbed her clitoris during pelvic exams and that she felt unable to refuse because he was her doctor and her pregnancy was high‑risk.
- Charges: Several counts were filed; jury convicted Harnetty of two counts of second‑degree sexual assault under Wyo. Stat. § 6‑2‑303(a)(vi) (position of authority).
- Procedural: State amended and dismissed duplicate counts during trial; Harnetty proposed a jury instruction based on a different statutory subsection (requiring proof that intrusion was "substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices"), and filed a post‑verdict Rule 34 motion to arrest judgment challenging discrepancies between preliminary hearing and trial testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed Harnetty was in a "position of authority" | State: OB/GYN‑patient relationship demonstrates statutory "position of authority" and use of that authority to cause submission. | Harnetty: Legislature did not intend to include health care providers in the position‑of‑authority subsection pre‑2018; conduct should be governed by (now repealed) subsection requiring deviation from reasonable medical practices. | Court: Sufficient evidence; OB/GYNs occupy a position of authority over patients. Affirmed. |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing Harnetty’s proposed theory‑of‑defense instruction | State: Not applicable — prosecution charged position‑of‑authority theory. | Harnetty: Jury should be instructed that conviction requires proof intrusion was substantially inconsistent with reasonable medical practices (i.e., instruction on different statutory theory). | Court: Rejection proper — proposed instruction would have instructed on a crime not charged; not a valid theory of defense. |
| Whether denial of Rule 34 motion for arrest of judgment was erroneous | State: Preliminary hearing testimony and charging dates fell within information; amendment/dismissal resolved duplicate counts. | Harnetty: Discrepancy between preliminary hearing and trial testimony meant he lacked a proper preliminary hearing on the charged count. | Court: Motion improperly raised non‑jurisdictional discrepancies; Rule 34 applies only to jurisdictional defects or information failing to charge an offense. Denial not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faubion v. State, 233 P.3d 926 (Wyo. 2010) (medical provider may occupy position of authority over patient)
- Baldes v. State, 276 P.3d 386 (Wyo. 2012) (power differential for medical providers supports position‑of‑authority finding)
- Solis v. State, 315 P.3d 622 (Wyo. 2013) (service provider who is trusted and needed by client can hold position of authority)
- Scadden v. State, 732 P.2d 1036 (Wyo. 1987) ("authority" means externally granted power)
- Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486 (Wyo. 1992) (defendant has due process right to a theory‑of‑defense instruction; cannot instruct on uncharged offense)