The Wyoming Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of Ryan Dale Townsend on one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, rejecting his arguments that the jury instructions were flawed. The case, which originated in Natrona County, involved allegations of abuse against a minor identified as VL.
Background of the Case
The case began when VL reported to her father that Townsend, a neighbor and family friend, had assaulted her friend, KD. The state subsequently charged Townsend with two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor. During the trial, VL testified about the events of April 23, 2023, when she and KD went to Townsend’s trailer to use a CBD pen. VL described feeling numb and unable to move after using the pen, leaving her alone with Townsend. She alleged that Townsend then engaged in unwanted physical contact, including kissing and removing her clothes, and ultimately, sexual penetration. After the incident, she returned to KD’s house and told her what happened.
KD’s testimony largely corroborated VL’s account. In addition, KD testified that VL told her she had been raped and then went to sleep. DNA evidence and phone records were also presented during the trial. Townsend denied any sexual activity occurred, but admitted that the girls had been at his place and had used his CBD pen.
The Jury Instructions and Verdict
The district court provided the jury with instructions, including one (Instruction 18) that outlined the elements of third-degree sexual abuse. Another instruction (Instruction 19) explained that “immodest, immoral, or indecent liberties” is defined generally as an action that the common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper. Instruction 20 specifically stated that providing CBD pens or allowing minors to use them did not constitute indecent liberties. The jury found Townsend not guilty on the two counts of second-degree sexual abuse but guilty on the third-degree charge.
Townsend’s Arguments on Appeal
Townsend appealed the conviction, raising two main arguments. First, he contended that the district court should have instructed the jury that third-degree sexual abuse of a minor excludes conduct that could qualify as first- or second-degree sexual abuse. This is because the statute defining third-degree sexual abuse specifically excludes acts that would constitute first- or second-degree sexual abuse. Second, he argued that the court should have specified the particular conduct that formed the basis of the third-degree sexual abuse charge in the jury instructions.
The Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Wyoming Supreme Court addressed each of Townsend’s arguments.
Waiver of the First Argument
The court first considered whether Townsend had waived his first argument. The court noted that the district court had raised the question of whether the jury should be instructed to exclude the conduct alleged in the second-degree charges from the third-degree charge. Defense counsel, however, specifically requested that the court *not* include such an exclusion in the instructions. The Supreme Court determined that because Townsend knowingly induced the alleged error, he had “affirmatively waived” the issue. The court cited the “invited error doctrine,” which prevents a party from appealing alleged trial court errors that were induced by their own actions. Therefore, the court declined to address whether the jury should have been instructed to exclude the conduct related to the second-degree charges.
Rejection of the Second Argument (Plain Error)
The court then turned to Townsend’s argument that the trial court committed “plain error” by failing to specify the conduct alleged to constitute third-degree sexual abuse in the jury instructions. Because Townsend did not object to the instructions at trial, the court reviewed them under the “plain error” standard.
To establish plain error, an appellant must show: (1) the record clearly presents the incident alleged to be error; (2) a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated in a clear and obvious way; and (3) the appellant was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.
The court found that Townsend met the first requirement because the instructions were part of the record. However, the court held that Townsend did not meet the second requirement. The court explained that it had previously held that adequate jury instructions must leave “no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed.” The court found that the instructions, when considered as a whole, were adequate. The court noted that the state had presented evidence of Townsend’s conduct, including kissing and touching, which would support a conviction of taking indecent liberties. The court concluded that the district court did not violate an unequivocal rule of law by not specifying the conduct, because the jury received instructions that separated the different charges.
The Outcome
Based on these findings, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Townsend’s conviction for third-degree sexual abuse of a minor.