State v. Bryce Cody Transue
Background
- Defendant Bryce Transue was charged with two counts of lewd conduct (against his then-11-year-old stepdaughter A.T. and his then-6-year-old daughter B.T.) and one count of sexual abuse of a child (alleging genital contact with B.T.’s breasts).
- During trial the State introduced CARES (videotaped forensic) interviews of both children; defense questioned the number of meetings and gifts (candy, popcorn, stuffed rabbit) from the prosecutor’s office.
- The prosecutor argued defense questioning implied improper influence or coaching by the prosecutors; the district court admitted the CARES videos under Idaho Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) as prior consistent statements.
- B.T.’s CARES interview described semen landing on her “stomach, and right here,” while at trial she corrected a prosecutor who used the word “chest” by saying “my stomach.” No witness explicitly testified to genital-to-breast contact.
- The jury convicted Transue on all three counts; Transue appealed, arguing (1) admission of CARES interviews was erroneous and (2) insufficient evidence supported the sexual-abuse (genital-to-breast) conviction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed admission of the CARES interviews but vacated the sexual-abuse conviction for lack of substantial evidence while affirming the two lewd-conduct convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CARES interviews under I.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statements to rebut implied recent fabrication/improper influence) | State: Defense questioning about meetings and gifts implied improper influence; prior consistent CARES statements admissible and not hearsay | Transue: Questions merely showed preparation and comfort; did not imply fabrication or coaching by prosecutors | Court: Admission proper—defense’s line of questioning could reasonably imply improper influence so prior consistent statements were admissible (no abuse of discretion) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual abuse count (genital-to-breast contact) | State: Jury could infer genital-to-breast contact from B.T.’s gestures in CARES interview and related testimony about forceful movement of B.T.’s head | Transue: B.T. never said “chest”; described semen on stomach/right here; no testimony of genital-to-breast contact—insufficient evidence | Court: Insufficient evidence—reasonable juror could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that genital contacted B.T.’s breasts; conviction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643 (Ct. App. 1999) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. McAway, 127 Idaho 54 (1995) (prior videotaped interview admissible where defense suggested victim was "programmed")
- State v. Joy, 155 Idaho 1 (2013) (prior consistent statements admissible only if made before motive to fabricate arose)
- United States v. Baron, 602 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1979) (intent of defense counsel irrelevant if implication of fabrication fairly arises from questioning)
- State v. Neyhart, 160 Idaho 746 (Ct. App. 2016) (children need not use anatomical precision; general references to body parts acceptable)
- State v. Gilman, 105 Idaho 891 (Ct. App. 1983) (circumstantial inference of physical contact may be sufficient for lewd conduct in appropriate circumstances)