John Wayne Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119

In June 2010 John Wayne Butler (defendant) drove his 15-year-old niece (H.H.) to an eye appointment and, while in the car, engaged in manual sexual contact over and under her clothing. H.H. did not report the incident until 2014.
Butler was charged with and convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-315(a)(iv).
At sentencing the Presentence Investigation (PSI) recommended incarceration and assessed risk; the PSI also found treatment programs inappropriate given Butler’s lack of admitted responsibility.
The district court stated, based on its long experience, that it disagreed with the PSI’s low-risk assessment, found Butler inappropriate for probation or community placement, and sentenced him to 7–15 years incarceration.
Butler appealed arguing: (1) insufficient evidence (challenging the ‘‘position of authority’’ element), (2) abuse of discretion in denying probation and imposing prison, and (3) plain error because sentencing considered improper factors (punishment for exercising right to trial).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove "position of authority" under § 6-2-315(a)(iv)	State: H.H.’s testimony and relationship established the elements; statute covers relatives.	Butler: State failed to show he occupied/used a position of authority or exercised significant influence to cause submission.	Affirmed: Being an uncle by marriage is a "relative" under the statute; where actor falls into an enumerated category (relative) no separate proof of influence is required.
Abuse of discretion in denying probation and imposing incarceration	State: District court considered PSI, trial evidence, and other objective factors; sentence within statutory range.	Butler: PSI risk assessment showed low recidivism risk; court improperly relied on its own experiential judgment to reject probation.	Affirmed: Court may consider its experience and weigh PSI as it deems fit; it expressly considered probation and wrote that it was considered.
Plain error for considering improper factors (punishing defendant for exercising jury trial right)	State: Prosecutor’s comments referenced PSI findings about lack of responsibility, not punishment for trial.	Butler: Prosecutor implied Butler’s going to trial showed non‑acceptance of responsibility and court punished him for exercising trial right.	Affirmed: No record evidence the court relied on Butler’s exercise of trial rights; plain‑error standard not met.

Bruce v. State, 346 P.3d 909 (Wyo. 2015) (introducing evidence after denial of motion for judgment of acquittal waives that motion)
Mendoza v. State, 151 P.3d 1112 (Wyo. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Rogers v. State, 346 P.3d 934 (Wyo. 2015) (distinguishing enumerated categories from statutory catchall for "position of authority")
Solis v. State, 315 P.3d 622 (Wyo. 2013) (interpretation of "position of authority" and the catchall provision)
Deeds v. State, 335 P.3d 473 (Wyo. 2014) (broad discretion of sentencing courts to consider PSI and other defendant factors)
Guinn v. State, 201 P.3d 423 (Wyo. 2009) (it is improper to punish a defendant for exercising the right to trial)