Opinion ID: 2637061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Description of the Crime of Taking Indecent Liberties with a Child

Text: [¶ 23] Burton claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing statement when he incorrectly described the crime of indecent liberties and improperly equated drug use with taking indecent liberties with a child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105 (LexisNexis 2001). The prosecutor stated: [PROSECUTOR]: Ladies and Gentlemen, before you go back into that room and deliberate, take a long, hard look at the defendant, Juan Burton, and mentally place him next to Kara Jess, [the victim], and Lucas Edwards and ask yourself: What was he doing with these kids? Is it a man who is just providing drugs for them? Or is it a man who's trying to totally control them? And does he have improper, immoral and indecent motives by being involved with these young kids? Burton also asserts that the prosecutor committed further misconduct and attempted to inject issues, other than the issue of his guilt or innocence, into the trial when he made the following statements: [Burton] is the adult with the responsibility in not providing [the minors] a place to do drugs, not providing them with the drugs. He is the adult, ladies and gentlemen, that is not supposed to take indecent liberties with a child. [¶ 24] The crime of taking indecent liberties with a child is set out in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105(a) (LexisNexis 2001): (a) Except under circumstance constituting sexual assault in the first, second or third degree as defined by W.S. 6-2-302 through 6-2-304, any person knowingly taking immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with any child or knowingly causing or encouraging any child to cause or encourage another child to commit with him any immoral or indecent act is guilty of a felony. Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, a person convicted under this section shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than ten (10) years, or both. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of the crime of taking indecent liberties with a child in accordance with § 14-3-105(a). Burton suggests that the court should have defined the phrase immodest, immoral or indecent liberties for the jury. This court has, however, repeatedly refused to precisely define the phrase immodest, immoral or indecent liberties. See e.g., Chapman v. State, 2001 WY 25, ¶ 28, 18 P.3d 1164, ¶ 28 (Wyo.2001); Sorenson v. State, 604 P.2d 1031, 1034-35 (Wyo.1979). Instead, the jury is allowed to apply its common sense by looking at the totality of the circumstances pertaining to the culpability of the accused's conduct. Chapman, at ¶ 28. [¶ 25] In this case, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of taking indecent liberties with a minor, without providing a definition of the phrase immodest, immoral or indecent liberties. It is, however, clear that the indecent liberties statute punishes inappropriate sexual conduct with children. Chapman, at ¶ 28. Consequently, a statement suggesting that providing drugs to children violates § 14-3-105 would be incorrect. [W]here a prosecutor repeatedly misstates the law to a jury, and thereby plants an erroneous conception which prejudices the defendant, a fair trial may, under certain circumstances, have been denied. Jones v. State, 580 P.2d 1150, 1154 (Wyo.1978). [¶ 26] After carefully reviewing the entire closing argument, we are not convinced that the prosecutor was informing the jury that providing children with drugs and a place to do drugs was a violation of the indecent liberties statute. In addition, we do not believe that the prosecutor was attempting to inject tangential issues, beyond the issue of Burton's guilt or innocence, into the case. In other portions of his argument, the prosecutor made it very clear that Burton was not on trial for his drug activities. The prosecutor stated, further, that sexual contact between the victim and Burton would constitute immoral and indecent liberties. In addition, the trial court appropriately instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. Consequently, we cannot say that Burton has shown a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law or that he was prejudiced by the comment.