Opinion ID: 1177613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the fallacy of the majority's position

Text: The majority argues that the jury, applying the reasonable-doubt standard (to a question of law!!) correctly guessed the law on what is and what is not state money. Arguendo, I will assume that the majority is correct in asserting that a certain $2,000.00 contribution to the Recreation Fund was unequivocably state money. However, this does not justify denying the appellant his right to a trial before a properly instructed jury. Article 1, Section 9, Wyoming Constitution. The public-funds-embezzlement statute provides that the conversion must be contrary to law, and the trial judge instructed the jury that this meant that the defendant must have knowingly and intentionally with criminal intent appropriated and converted said money and property. Had the jury been properly instructed, would it have concluded that this intent element was satisfied? The Wyoming Supreme Court cannot place itself in the jury box and usurp the jury's role. [3] E.g., Neal v. Wailes, Wyo., 346 P.2d 132 (1959). I would have reversed.