450 P.3d 208
Wyo.2019Background
- Victim (SA) is a 31-year-old woman with Down syndrome; testing showed a composite IQ of 49 and age-equivalent reasoning of ~7 years, 8 months; her mother is legal guardian and payee.
- At a 2007 class reunion bar event, Brown met SA, kissed her, led her to his truck, made sexual contact (touching breasts/vaginal area), and put SA’s hand on his exposed genitals; SA twice told him to stop and left when he exited the truck.
- SA immediately reported the incident to her cousin and others at the bar; police were called, officers interviewed SA, and SA had a recorded forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Project (CAP).
- State charged Brown with sexual assault in the third degree (two alternative theories: (1) use of physical force to cause submission; (2) defendant knew or should have known the victim was incapable of appraising her conduct due to mental disability) and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult.
- Trial evidence: SA’s testimony; testimony recounting SA’s out‑of‑court statements (cousin, cousin’s husband, officers, CAP interviewer); CAP interview video; expert testimony about SA’s disability (Dr. Bell); limited forensic/DNA testing; and evidence Brown was intoxicated.
- Jury convicted Brown on both sexual‑assault theories and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult; Brown appealed, arguing (1) plain error from admission of hearsay and the CAP video, and (2) insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of multiple witnesses’ testimony recounting SA’s out‑of‑court statements and the CAP interview video was plain error | State: testimony and video were admissible (or at least arguably admissible) under hearsay exclusions/exceptions and any error was not material | Brown: admission violated hearsay rule; counsel did not object at trial but court plainly erred and evidence was prejudicial | No plain error—defense failed to show a clear and unequivocal legal transgression and no material prejudice; much evidence was cumulative and possibly admissible under multiple doctrines (excited utterance, prior ID, effect on hearer) |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict for (a) sexual assault in the third degree (under force and disability theories) and (b) intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult | State: testimony, contemporaneous reports, expert proof of SA’s disability, and witness observations supported both theories and undermined intoxication defense | Brown: insufficient proof of physical force and of his knowledge of SA’s disability; intoxication prevented specific intent for intentional abuse | Evidence sufficient. Jury reasonably could find (a) continued contact after refusal and forcing SA’s hand to his genitals constituted physical force; alternatively circumstantial and expert testimony supported that Brown knew or should have known SA’s disability; (b) despite intoxication, testimony of coherence and conduct supported intent to abuse a vulnerable adult |
Key Cases Cited
- Schreibvogel v. State, 228 P.3d 874 (Wyo. 2010) (plain‑error review where counsel failed to object to hearsay; difficult to show clear transgression when evidence may be admissible under multiple doctrines)
- Causey v. State, 215 P.3d 287 (Wyo. 2009) (articulates plain‑error standard: clear record, transgression of clear rule, material prejudice)
- Wilde v. State, 74 P.3d 699 (Wyo. 2003) (repeated admissible hearsay can be prejudicial where used to ‘‘pile on’’ and bolster witness testimony)
- Griggs v. State, 367 P.3d 1108 (Wyo. 2016) (hearsay admission harmless if evidence is merely cumulative of other proof)
- Saiz v. State, 30 P.3d 21 (Wyo. 2001) (circumstantial evidence and victim’s appearance/speech can support finding defendant knew of victim’s intellectual disability)
- Westwood v. State, 693 P.2d 763 (Wyo. 1985) (self‑induced intoxication does not automatically negate required specific intent; court may consider coherency and actions)