Jaime Solis v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 152
Wyo.2013Background
- Victim (KO), a 20‑year‑old college student with chronic pain, received multiple massages from Appellant (a massage therapist) between Sept. 2009 and April 15, 2010; on April 15 Appellant allegedly digitally penetrated KO without consent during a massage.
- KO reported the assault after confiding in her bishop and parents; a recorded phone call captured Appellant apologizing and admitting the act as a “non-traditional massage.”
- Appellant was tried by jury on two counts under the same statute (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6‑2‑303(a)): (vi) position of authority causing submission, and (viii) sexual intrusion in treatment inconsistent with reasonable medical practices.
- Jury convicted on both counts; district court merged sentences (concurrent 3–5 year terms) but entered two convictions and imposed separate financial assessments.
- Appellant appealed raising: insufficiency of evidence that he held a position of authority; prosecutorial misconduct (defining reasonable doubt; victim‑impact/emotional appeals; urging jury to “hold defendant accountable”); and double jeopardy (two convictions from disjunctive subsections based on the same act).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Solis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency: was Appellant in a “position of authority”? | Massage therapist–client relationship creates a power differential; Appellant exercised significant influence over KO. | No statutory authority: lack of professional certification and employment arrangement undermine claim of authority. | Held: Sufficient evidence — massage therapist–client relationship can create position of authority; jury could find Appellant had significant influence. |
| 2. Prosecutor defining "reasonable doubt" in closing | Remarks merely clarified what reasonable doubt is not (not beyond all doubt). | Statements impermissibly defined the legal standard, warranting reversal. | Held: No plain error — remarks similar to prior accepted explanations; court repeatedly instructed burden of proof; no prejudice. |
| 3. Prosecutorial misconduct via victim‑impact/emotional appeals and "hold him accountable" theme | Background and credibility‑rehabilitating facts about KO were proper; asking jury to hold defendant accountable was a legitimate argument tied to evidence. | Prosecutor elicited improper victim‑impact testimony and appealed to passion; urging to "hold accountable" improperly suggested duty to convict. | Held: Some victim‑impact testimony was improper (elicited to arouse sympathy), so rule violated, but no reversible plain error — abundant evidence (including Appellant’s recorded admission) and repeated correct instructions eliminated reasonable possibility of prejudice; "hold accountable" comments not plain error. |
| 4. Double jeopardy: two convictions under disjunctive subsections of same statute | Charging alternate subsections was permissible; separate convictions may stand. | Two convictions under disjunctive subsections for the same act violate double jeopardy — when statute lists alternative means, only one conviction should survive. | Held: Reversed as to convictions — two convictions for disjunctive subsections of one statute (same act) violate double jeopardy; remand for a single conviction and sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scadden v. State, 732 P.2d 1036 (Wyo. 1987) (definition and construction of "position of authority").
- Faubion v. State, 233 P.3d 926 (Wyo. 2010) (health‑care provider relationship can create a position of authority; legislative purpose to protect vulnerable patients).
- Baldes v. State, 276 P.3d 386 (Wyo. 2012) (power differential in professional provider–patient relationships supports position of authority finding).
- Rivera v. State, 987 P.2d 678 (Wyo. 1999) (permissible prosecutor explanations distinguishing reasonable doubt from beyond all doubt).
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S. 1985) (separate convictions have collateral consequences; merger of sentences does not cure multiple convictions problem).
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑elements test for determining whether two statutory violations constitute one offense).
- Duffy v. State, 789 P.2d 821 (Wyo. 1990) (when statute lists alternative means, legislative intent controls whether alternative violations are a single offense).
- Stalcup v. State, 311 P.3d 104 (Wyo. 2013) (if a statute provides alternative means of committing one offense, only one conviction and sentence may stand).