Opinion ID: 2584598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 8] When an appellant presents a claim of insufficient evidence we apply the following standard of review: When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party, and afford every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from the successful party's evidence. We have consistently held that it is the jury's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, ... our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did. Lewis v. State, 2006 WY 81, ¶ 7, 137 P.3d 909, 911 (Wyo.2006) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). [¶ 9] Appellant asserts that the State did not present sufficient evidence of each element of first degree sexual assault. Specifically, he contends a jury could not find that he caused submission of K.C., or that he caused submission by both physical force and forcible confinement. To facilitate the discussion, we repeat the elements of first degree sexual assault: (a) Any actor who inflicts sexual intrusion on a victim commits a sexual assault in the first degree if: (i) The actor causes submission of the victim through the actual application, reasonably calculated to cause submission of the victim, of physical force or forcible confinement. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-302(a)(i). At the conclusion of the trial, the jury received the following instruction with respect to the first degree sexual assault charge: The elements of the crime of Sexual Assault in the First Degree, as charged in this case under Count I are: 1. On or about the 29th day of October, 2007; 2. In Laramie County, Wyoming; 3. The Defendant, MANUEL MASIAS; 4. Inflicted sexual intrusion on [K.C.]; and 5. The Defendant caused submission of [K.C.]; 6. Through the actual application of physical force and/or forcible confinement; 7. Which the Defendant reasonably calculated would cause submission of [K.C.]. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant not guilty. [¶ 10] Part 6 of the instruction was presented to the jury with the alternatives physical force and/or forcible confinement. Because the instruction provides alternative bases for conviction and a general verdict form was used, we must determine if there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Appellant caused submission of K.C. through application of physical force and through application of forcible confinement. Lewis, ¶ 10, 137 P.3d at 912. The verdict must be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected. Bush v. State, 908 P.2d 963, 966 (Wyo.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); Tanner v. State, 2002 WY 170, ¶ 8, 57 P.3d 1242, 1244 (Wyo.2002). The State maintains there was sufficient evidence of both physical force and forcible confinement to support the guilty verdict. [¶ 11] Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence reflected that, after a night of drinking and fighting, Appellant asked K.C. for sex and she refused. Appellant then got into bed, forced K.C.'s legs apart, and jammed his fist into K.C.'s vagina. K.C. tried to fight off Appellant but he held her down with his force, and she was unable to escape. She did not report the incident the next day because Appellant stayed home and she was fearful of his reaction. On the following day, after Appellant left for work, K.C. reported the incident to a neighbor and law enforcement was contacted. K.C. was taken to the hospital for a medical exam, where the SANE nurse documented two serious injuries to her vaginal area. [¶ 12] K.C. testified about the incident as follows: [Prosecutor]: Okay. So as you were lying there then tell me exactly in detail what happened. [K.C.]: Um, I was laying on my back in the bed. And he was angry with me because I wouldn't have sex with him. I wasn't in the mood. So then he started accusing me of having an affair and that I was seeing somebody else, all of this which was not true. And he stuck his hand up me, inside of me, hurt me; I mean, he hurt me. [Q]: Did he hold you down in any way? [A]: Well, he's bigger than I am. I didn't really have much of a choice. He didn't hold me down, no. He justhis force held me down. ... [Q]: And when this happened did you resist him in any way or try to fight [Appellant]? [A]: Yes. [Q]: And were you ableyou weren't able to fight him off? [A]: No. ... [Q]: And so your legs were together as you were lying on the bed with [Appellant]. So he had to force your legs apart to get his hands into your private area? [A]: Yes. [Q]: You didn't voluntarily open your legs, did you? [A]: No. ... [Q]: And after [Appellant] forced your legs apart and he put his hand in your private area, how did you feel immediately? What did you feel? [A]: It hurt. [Q]: Had you ever had that kind of hurt before? [A]: No. [Q]: Would you have ever consented to [Appellant] doing that? [A]: No. [¶ 13] The SANE nurse testified that K.C.'s vaginal injuries were caused by blunt force trauma. She also stated that of the approximately 200 exams she had performed during her career, K.C.'s injuries were the most serious she had seen. There is sufficient evidence that Appellant caused the submission of K.C. by physical force. [¶ 14] We must also determine if the evidence supports a finding that Appellant forcibly confined K.C. Appellant contends that K.C. was not `forcibly confined' as that term should be reasonably understood. He cites to the definitions of forcible and confinement in Black's Law Dictionary for the meaning of the terms. According to that source, forcible means [e]ffected by force or threat of force against opposition or resistance. [3] Black's Law Dictionary 674 (8th ed. 2004). Confinement is defined as [t]he act of imprisoning or restraining someone; the state of being imprisoned or restrained. Id. at 318. Appellant maintains [t]here was no testimony to show that [he] held her down, kept her in place, did not permit her to leave the bed, or in any other way `forcibly confined' her. We disagree. [¶ 15] K.C. testified that Appellant held her down with his force, and she tried to get away but could not. The difference in physical size between the two supports K.C.'s testimony. Appellant is taller and heavier than K.C., who stands five foot four and weighs a little more than one hundred pounds. [4] K.C. also described the sexual assault to the SANE nurse stating, I was laying in bed. He wanted sex. I told him no. He got mad and jammed his fist into my vagina, his whole fist inside. He's not a small man. [¶ 16] Appellant's testimony also supports a finding that he restrained K.C. that night. He admitted that he put [his] arm over her chest and one on her leg to hold her down for three to four minutes. Although Appellant testified that his purpose in holding her down was to prevent her from hurting herself while she was having a seizure, the jury could reasonably determine that his explanation for holding K.C. down was not credible. Under the dictionary definition of forcible confinement supplied by Appellant, there is sufficient evidence that K.C. was restrained by force during the attack. [5] [¶ 17] Additionally, we have previously recognized that in determining whether forcible confinement was established, a jury may appropriately consider the dynamics of the relationship of the assailant and the victim. In Lewis, ¶ 12, 137 P.3d at 912, where the victim was a four-year-old girl and the assailant was her step-father, we found sufficient evidence of forcible confinement by considering the discrepancy in size and strength, and the dynamics of the parent-child relationship. [¶ 18] The evidence regarding the dynamics of the relationship between Appellant and K.C. reflected prior physical abuse. K.C. once resisted Appellant by slapping him, but testified that she immediately regretted it because she was afraid of his retaliation. She also testified that she did not immediately call the police because Appellant was still in the house and she feared his reaction if he found out that she had reported the incident. The jury could reasonably use these facts in determining whether Appellant's actions were likely to restrain K.C. and cause her submission. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.