Court Opinion

ID: 9790922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:25.075317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.685590
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the decision to affirm this conviction, but differ in not finding that an uncorroborated sexual assault case is presented. My historical concern with one witness uncorroborated testimony for sexual assault convictions justifies recognition of significant and persuasive evidence of guilt supporting the essentially uncontested testimony of this victim. Consequently, I discern this case to be a general sufficiency of the evidence case and not a character of proof requiring resort to any uncorroborated testimony rule. Cf Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020 (Wyo.1986); W.S. 6-2-311. See also Brown v. State, 581 P.2d 189 (Wyo.1978).
I would consider the combined weight of evidence presented for proof of guilt by not only the testimony of the victim, but also the circumstantial and conjunctive testimony of other witnesses, Fitzgerald v. State, 599 P.2d 572 (Wyo.1979), which is factually reinforced. Varvaro v. State, 772 S.W.2d 140 (Tex.App.1988). Corroboration included the victim’s physical condition immediately after occurrence, the observation of her escape from the perpetrator’s vehicle by the young driver who provided immediate assistance, the supporting testimony of her fiance as to the incidents of the evening, the evidence of immediate report to the police which permitted confirmation from that officer of believability and her mental and physical condition immediately following the assault.
I concur generally in affirmation on a sufficiency basis that substantial evidence existed to sustain the jury’s decision by a review of a totality of the proof. My aversion to any rigid application of an uncorroborated victim’s testimony rule need not be considered for this well-proven case. After reviewing the evidence and appropriate inference in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact would have found the essential elements of the crime to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That evidence was positive, convincing and provided the In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1075, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 377-78 (1970) due process requirement of certainty. Munson v. State, 770 P.2d 1093 (Wyo.1989).