State v. Edmonds, 702 S.E.2d 408

Edmonds was indicted on seven counts of sexual abuse by a custodian or person in a position of trust to a child under W.Va.Code § 61-8D-5(a).
The abuse concerned a sixteen-year-old girl, Angel G., who testified Edmonds had sexual contact with her at the school/church and later at a remodeling house.
Forensics linked semen on pantyhose to Edmonds, and DNA testing supported a match to Edmonds' profile.
The circuit court denied a defense motion to dismiss; the jury acquitted counts 1–4 and convicted counts 5–7, with concurrent sentencing of not less than ten years to twenty years.
The 2005 version of the statute expanded liability to include a 'person in a position of trust'; the court provided jury instructions defining custodian and such a position.
On appeal, Edmonds challenged the sufficiency of evidence for both 'position of trust' status and 'care, custody or control,' arguing the State failed to prove those elements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Edmonds a person in a position of trust to Angel G.?	Edmonds contends no position of trust existed.	Edmonds contends not a position of trust under statute.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported 'position of trust.'
Was Angel G. under Edmonds' care, custody or control at the time of the acts at the remodeled house?	Angel was under his care/custody/control.	Angel was not under care, custody or control.	Yes; sufficient evidence showed care/custody/control.

State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995) (sufficiency standard for criminal evidence)
State v. Stephens, 206 W. Va. 420, 525 S.E.2d 301 (1999) (babysitter may be a custodian; jury question)
State v. Collins, 221 W. Va. 229, 654 S.E.2d 115 (2007) (whether adult taking a child on rides was custodian; jury decision proper)
In re Clifford K., 217 W. Va. 625, 619 S.E.2d 138 (2005) (common meaning of 'care' 'custody' 'control' in absence of definitions)