State v. LONGERBEAM, 703 S.E.2d 307

Appellant Longerbeam was convicted on one count of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian, or person in a position of trust with regard to a child under WV Code § 61-8D-5(a).
The alleged offense involved Longerbeam touching the victim Marissa G.'s breast while she was seated with him in a living room; sister Kacy was present but not the caregiver at that moment.
The State argued Longerbeam fell within the statute’s custodial or trusted-relations classes; the defense argued he did not.
The trial court denied Longerbeam’s post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal; he appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence under § 61-8D-5(a).
The majority reversed, concluding the State failed to prove Longerbeam was a custodian or a person in a position of trust at the time of the incident.
Dissent by Justice Benjamin (joined by Justice Workman) argued there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and criticized the majority for substituting its own factual conclusions for the jury’s findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Longerbeam a custodian under § 61-8D-5(a)?	Longerbeam argued he did not have care/custody on a full- or part-time basis.	State contends the Longerbeams’ caretaking role during the incident made him a custodian.	No; insufficient evidence Longerbeam cared for Marissa G. at the time.
Was Longerbeam a person in a position of trust under § 61-8D-5(a)?	Longerbeam asserts no formal supervisory role existed on the date of the offense.	State contends familial relationship and perceived control constituted a position of trust.	No; there was insufficient evidence he occupied a position of trust at the time of the act.
Did the State prove the offense occurred with a qualifying act of abuse by a qualifying class of individual?	Longerbeam challenges the applicability of the statute’s enhanced penalties to him.	State argues the conduct fit § 61-8D-5(a) given Longerbeam's familial ties and supervisory role.	No; the statute’s enhanced-penalty provision did not apply as a matter of law.

State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657 (1995) (sufficiency standard for criminal review)
State v. Stephens, 206 W.Va. 420 (1999) (babysitter can be custodian; jury question)
State v. Collins, 221 W.Va. 229 (2007) (whether adult taking child with permission is custodian; jury question)
State v. Cecil, 221 W.Va. 495 (2007) (sufficiency to sustain custodian finding under § 61-8D-5(a))
Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W.Va. 203 (1999) (statutory construction urging meaningful interpretation of statute)