James Edward Rogers
2015 WY 48
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- James Rogers babysat for a nine-year-old and a sixteen-year-old developmentally disabled girl, C.W., at the Longs’ home when the father left.
- Rogers engaged in kissing, fondling, and sexual acts with C.W., including intercourse, while the children were unsupervised.
- C.W. reported the assault the next day; a DNA test linked Rogers to the victim’s underwear with extremely high probability.
- Rogers was charged with four offenses, later reduced to three counts, and later sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment for the first-degree sexual assault and concurrent terms on the other counts.
- Evidence included testimony from C.W., a guidance counselor, and a fingerprint analysis linking Rogers to prior felonies used to prove habitual offender status.
- The district court sentenced Rogers as a habitual criminal under Wyoming statute 6-10-201, based on multiple prior felonies from Ohio and Wyoming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers held a position of authority over C.W. | Rogers was a babysitter; the State says custodial authority creates a position of authority. | Babysitting alone does not necessarily create authority under the statute. | Yes; Rogers occupied a position of authority over C.W. |
| Whether the indecent-liberties charges under § 6-2-316(a)(iv) were properly charged, and whether Counts II and III should merge. | The acts fit indecent liberties; charging and exposure to separate offenses is proper. | The acts may involve a single incident; merger may be appropriate. | The conduct satisfied indecent liberties; no merger for Counts II and III; three separate offenses remain. |
| Whether three counts under §§ 6-2-302(a)(i) and 6-2-316(II/IV) should merge into a single crime. | Each statute targets distinct harms; multiple convictions are permissible. | Trial court failed to properly merge overlapping offenses. | No merging; Blockburger test satisfied; three convictions upheld. |
| Whether Rogers’ habitual-offender status was sufficiently proven. | Prior felonies, including Ohio and Wyoming convictions, were adequately established. | One of the prior convictions was not clearly shown to be a felony. | Habitual-offender status proven; life sentence appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Solis v. State, 2013 WY 152, 315 P.3d 622 (Wyo. 2013) (whether a caregiver holds a position of authority for § 6-2-316(a)(ii))
- Faubion v. State, 233 P.3d 926 (Wyo. 2010) (definition and scope of 'position of authority')
- Baldes v. State, 276 P.3d 386 (Wyo. 2012) (power differentials in professional settings and applicable limits)
- Sorenson v. State, 604 P.2d 1031 (Wyoming 1979) (notice of indecent-liberties standards for definitions)
- Dougherty v. State, 239 P.3d 1176 (Wyo. 2010) (definition of 'indecent' and notice in indecent-liberties context)
- Sweets v. State, 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013) (Blockburger test as sole framework for sentencing merger)