Matthew Len Jones v. State
2017 WY 44
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- In May 2014, six-year-old IR was observed on Jones’ lap with hands under a blanket; IR later told her mother Jones pulled his penis out of his pajama pants and made her touch it. Jones denied intentional misconduct.
- AR (the child’s mother) reported the allegation; IR was video-interviewed by a trained forensic interviewer (DePoorter) on June 2, 2014; Jones was charged with second-degree sexual assault of a minor.
- Defense counsel moved for a competency hearing and reviewed the forensic interview; he retained/consulted experts about the interview (one, Shontay Roe, concluded the interview was professionally conducted and did not taint the child’s memory).
- The district court held a competency hearing, examined the child, found IR competent to testify, and later a jury convicted Jones after a two-day trial.
- Jones filed a Rule 21 motion claiming ineffective assistance (failures to investigate, seek/produce experts, challenge taint, and cross-examine IR). The district court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing; Jones appealed both the conviction and the denial of the Rule 21 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’ Argument | State’s/Defendant’s Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective in pretrial/competency-stage preparation (failure to investigate developmental issues, taint, or obtain expert) | Counsel failed to investigate IR’s speech/developmental issues, didn’t secure a favorable expert, and didn’t pursue taint aggressively | Counsel reviewed the interview, obtained an expert who found the interview appropriate, reasonably concluded IR was competent, and made defensible tactical choices | Court: No deficiency; counsel’s investigation and expert consultation were reasonable and no prejudicial omission shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at trial (insufficient cross-examination and failure to present stronger defense) | Counsel did not adequately cross-examine IR or pursue avenues that might have undermined her credibility; expert at Rule 21 hearing second-guessed trial strategy | Counsel strategically limited cross-examination to avoid risking rehabilitative or more damaging testimony and presented contrary witnesses (wife, children) and impeachment themes | Court: No deficiency; tactics were reasonable and aimed at preserving favorable statements and undermining AR’s credibility |
| Whether loss/misplacement of the video evidence prejudiced the defense | Temporary misplacement of the video impaired preparation and counsel’s ability to plan | Video was ultimately reviewed by counsel and expert well before competency hearing; no prejudice shown | Court: No prejudice; late recovery did not affect competence of preparation |
| Sufficiency of the evidence as to requisite sexual intent element | No evidence Jones acted with intent for sexual arousal/gratification/abuse when he caused IR to touch him | IR’s testimony (hand placed on penis), Jones’ concealment with a blanket, and IR’s report of Jones’ reaction (smiling) support an inference of sexual intent | Court: Evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (standards for child witness competency and ineffective assistance review)
- Mraz v. State, 378 P.3d 280 (Wyo. 2016) (evaluating counsel’s performance from the perspective at the time, cautioning about cross-examination risks)
- Butler v. State, 358 P.3d 1259 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)
- McEuen v. State, 388 P.3d 779 (Wyo. 2017) (do not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review; give State the benefit of favorable inferences)
- Montee v. State, 303 P.3d 362 (Wyo. 2013) (intent may be proven circumstantially)
- Birch v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 319 P.3d 901 (Wyo. 2014) (finder of fact may disregard equivocal or insufficiently tied expert opinion)
- Leavitt v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 307 P.3d 835 (Wyo. 2013) (standards for assessing expert testimony credibility)
- Rice v. State, 500 P.2d 675 (Wyo. 1972) (treatment of expert evidence credibility and weight)