State v. Kraly, 423 P.3d 1019

In April 2016, 30-year-old Shane Kraly met 17-year-old M.M. on social media; M.M. told Kraly she was 19. They arranged that Kraly would stay the night in M.M.’s separate bedroom and have sex.
Kraly pressured M.M. to take methamphetamine, injected meth into her rectum, then repeatedly injected both himself and M.M. intravenously; they had sex through the night and the following morning.
M.M. missed school; her ankle monitor led law enforcement to a casino parking lot where officers found Kraly and M.M. in Kraly’s truck. Kraly was arrested and charged with rape, injury to child (Idaho Code § 18-1501(1)), possession of methamphetamine, and paraphernalia possession.
A jury convicted Kraly on all counts; the district court imposed concurrent prison sentences. Kraly appealed the injury-to-child conviction (Count II), arguing insufficient evidence that he had “care or custody” of M.M.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed statutory meaning and the evidence, concluding the statutory phrase “care or custody” requires an affirmative duty arising from a special relationship or an assumed duty to act as a caregiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury had sufficient evidence that Kraly had "care or custody" of M.M. under I.C. § 18-1501(1)	The State: “care or custody” encompasses control or supervision—Kraly controlled M.M. during their time together, including in his truck, so the statute applies.	Kraly: “care or custody” means assuming responsibility for child’s safety/well-being (a caregiver duty); no such duty existed here.	Court: Reversed; insufficient evidence. "Care or custody" requires an affirmative duty via a special relationship or assumed caregiver role; Kraly did not assume such duties. Judgment of conviction on Count II vacated and remanded for acquittal.

Beers v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 155 Idaho 680 (2013) (requires an affirmative duty—special relationship or assumed duty—to find "care or custody")
Morales v. State, 146 Idaho 264 (Ct. App. 2008) (defining "care" by ordinary meaning and examining assumed caregiving duties)
People v. Cochran, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (care/custody can arise from assuming parent-like responsibilities)
People v. Culuko, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (care exists where defendant lived with and performed caregiver tasks for the child)
State v. Anspach, 627 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 2001) (statute focused on control over instrumentality creating risk; court contrasted control-based standard with Idaho's responsibility-based standard)
State v. Jones, 937 P.2d 310 (Ariz. 1997) (care and custody imply accepting responsibility for a child)