Summary
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed Michael Scott Carroll II’s convictions for two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The court rejected challenges to the admission of evidence concerning Carroll’s prior sexual-abuse conviction and domestic violence, the exclusion of the victim’s prior sexual conduct under Wyoming’s rape-shield statute, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether evidence of Carroll's prior conviction for sexual assault was improperly admitted under W.R.E. 404(b) and improperly referenced during witness questioning.
- Whether evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct was improperly excluded under Wyoming's rape-shield statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-312.
- Whether evidence of Carroll's domestic violence against T.T.'s mother was improperly admitted after the defense challenged her credibility.
- Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument.
- Whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors denied Carroll a fair trial.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Carroll's prior conviction because the evidence was offered for proper non propensity purposes, was relevant to intent, motive, plan, and course of conduct, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- The prosecutor's references to the properly admitted prior conviction did not constitute plain error because Carroll identified no violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of T.T.'s prior sexualized conduct under Wyoming's rape-shield statute.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Carroll had abused T.T.'s mother after the defense attacked the mother's credibility.
- The prosecutor's challenged statements did not constitute plain error or prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal.
- There was no cumulative error warranting reversal because the court found no individual error in Carroll's claims.
Key quotations
“Evidence is inadmissible under W.R.E. 404(b) “if the thrust of the evidence is only to demonstrate that the defendant has a disposition to commit crimes.”” (¶ 12)
“To allow this type of evidence under the appellant’s proffered justification, we concluded, “would open the door for defendants in sexual assault prosecutions (particularly cases involving children) to explore freely the knowledge and prior sexual practices/experiences of their victims.”” (¶ 24)
“The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record. It is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor intentionally to misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
Carroll lived with his wife, his mistress, and their children, including T.T., the mistress's teenage daughter. T.T. testified that beginning when she was fourteen, Carroll took her to his bedroom for massages that escalated to touching and vaginal penetration with his fingers and a sex toy. Carroll had previously pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse of a fourteen-year-old minor, and the prosecution introduced that conviction, along with evidence concerning domestic violence against T.T.'s mother, at trial.
Procedural history
Carroll was charged in Laramie County District Court and convicted on all three charges following a jury trial. The district court admitted evidence of his prior conviction under W.R.E. 404(b), excluded portions of the victim's prior sexual-conduct evidence under Wyoming's rape-shield statute, admitted domestic-violence evidence after the defense attacked a witness's credibility, and denied relief based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.