Steven W. Vaught v. State, 366 P.3d 512

On Jan. 15, 2014, Vaught allegedly forced his wife in the kitchen, duct-taped her mouth, pressed on her neck, threatened to tie her to the bed and kill her, and later compelled sexual acts by threat of death. She later escaped and summoned police.
Vaught was charged with two counts of first‑degree sexual assault and one count of kidnapping (confinement with intent to inflict bodily injury or terrorize).
At trial Vaught did not request or argue for an instruction embodying an “incidental rule” (that confinement incidental to another crime cannot support kidnapping), nor did he move for acquittal or a new trial on that basis.
During deliberations the jury asked for clarification on the kidnapping instruction and its lesser‑included offenses; the court, after both counsel agreed, told the jury to reread the instructions.
Vaught was convicted on all counts and appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not instructing the jury on the incidental‑rule and (2) the court’s response to the jury’s note was plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vaught)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether jury should have been instructed that confinement incidental to another crime cannot support kidnapping	Court committed plain error by not giving an “incidental rule” instruction; such a rule limits kidnapping when confinement is merely part of the other crime	No settled Wyoming authority required such an instruction; Vaught never requested it at trial	No plain error. Wyoming statutes do not incorporate the Model Penal Code’s substantial‑distance/time limitations; no clear rule required the instruction
Whether telling jury to reread instructions (in response to their note) was plain error	The court’s reply improperly failed to clarify law and prejudiced verdict	Both counsel asked the court to tell jurors to reread instructions; the note was too general to answer without invading deliberations	No plain error. Counsel agreed to the response; the question was too vague to permit more; no reasonable probability of prejudice

Keene v. State, 812 P.2d 147 (Wyo. 1991) (interpreting kidnapping statute language and declining to read in a movement‑within‑premises rule)
Doud v. State, 845 P.2d 402 (Wyo. 1993) (refusing to import the Model Penal Code requirement of substantial period of confinement into Wyoming law)
Kovach v. State, 299 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2013) (plain‑error and material‑prejudice standard for unpreserved jury‑instruction claims)
Brown v. State, 340 P.3d 1020 (Wyo. 2015) (discussing when supplemental instructions may be prejudicial or touch factual matters)
Toth v. State, 353 P.3d 696 (Wyo. 2015) (invited‑error doctrine and exception for necessarily prejudicial errors)