Moe v. State

2005 WY 58 (2005) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · May 10, 2005 · No. No. 03-139

Summary

This Wyoming Supreme Court opinion affirms the appellant's felony conviction for taking indecent liberties with a sixteen-year-old girl. The court addresses challenges to the facial and as-applied constitutionality of the indecent liberties statute under due process and equal protection grounds, finding it sufficiently clear and not unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, the court reviews evidentiary rulings regarding the exclusion of hearsay statements from an unavailable defense witness and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, concluding that no reversible error occurred.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
HILL, C.J.; GOLDEN, J.; KITE, J.; VOIGT, J.; STEBNER, District Judge, Retired
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
May 10, 2005
Docket number
No. 03-139
Procedural posture
Appeal from conviction and sentence in Wyoming district court
Standard of review
plain error for constitutional and prosecutorial issues; abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings
Precedential value
published
Parties
Derald L. Moe v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

due processprocedural due processequal protectioncriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether W.S. § 14‑3‑105 is facially unconstitutional.
  2. Whether W.S. § 14‑3‑105 is unconstitutional as applied to Moe's conduct.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit statements of an unavailable witness, violating Moe's right to present a defense and confront witnesses.
  4. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing argument.

Holdings

  1. The statute is not facially unconstitutional; it provides sufficient notice of prohibited conduct.
  2. The statute is not unconstitutional as applied; the conduct falls within the scope of indecent liberties.
  3. The trial court did not err in excluding Studie’s statements; the statements did not satisfy the catch‑all hearsay exception and lacked guarantees of trustworthiness.
  4. No prosecutorial misconduct occurred; the prosecutor’s statements were within permissible argument.

Key quotations

Clearly, I think there is tons of evidence that an indecent liberty occurred here. Everybody agrees that it's an indecent liberty. ... It is not a big deal that I'm pregnant. It is not a big deal I'm going to have a kid. I'm going to live with my parents. (¶18)

Factual background

In October 2002, 34‑year‑old Derald Moe engaged in sexual intercourse with 16‑year‑old AB in Moe's trailer while other minors were present. AB later reported the intercourse as non‑consensual. A witness for the defense, Dakota Studie, was unavailable; the trial court excluded his statements as hearsay. Moe was convicted of indecent liberties and sentenced to two to five years.

Procedural history

Moe was convicted of one count of taking immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a sixteen‑year‑old girl under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14‑3‑105(a). He appealed asserting the statute was facially and as‑applied unconstitutional, that the trial court erred in excluding hearsay statements of an unavailable witness, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…