Court Summaries
| Publication year | 2023 |
| Pages | 34 |
Court Summaries
Anna Reeves Olson
Joseph R. Walker v. State of Wyoming 2022 WY 158
December 19, 2022
S-21-0045, S-22-0042
In January 2020, 34-year-old Joseph Walker moved in with the R family. Mr. and Mrs. R lived with their children, one of which was KR (age 15). In February 2020, KR's mother discovered that Walker had touched KR inappropriately on more than one occasion.
Mrs. R reported the matter to police and Sergeant Hyland interviewed KR alone for an hour. KR disclosed that Walker had touched her vaginal area five to ten times and the first time was about a week to two weeks after Walker moved into the R home. The last time was approximately two weeks before the interview. KR also reported that on one occasion Walker attempted to place his face on her vagina, but she ran away.
Walker was arrested and charged with five counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The information for Counts I through V contained identical language:
On or between January 19, 2020, to February 9, 2020, . . . [Mr. Walker] engaged in sexual contact with a victim who was thirteen (13) through fifteen (15) years of age and the actor being seventeen (17) years of age or older. . .
At trial, the jury instructions for Counts I to V contained identical language except for the count number. The jury found Walker guilty of Counts I, II, III, and not guilty of Counts IV and V.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and held that the jury instructions were plainly erroneous because they did not differentiate between the five counts of third-degree sexual assault. This problem likely invited the possibility of juror confusion and denied Walker his right to a fair trial. The Court reasoned that "Article 1, Section 9 of the Wyoming Constitution recognizes the right of an accused to receive a unanimous verdict by twelve impartial jurors," but if identical language is contained on each jury instruction, there is a danger that a jury may convict a defendant without reaching a unanimous agreement on precisely which charge is the basis for the conviction.
Here, the jury instructions and the verdict form contained no language that would distinguish between the crimes charged in Counts I to V. This meant that one juror could believe that the third time Walker came into the bedroom was the second time he inappropriately touched her, but another juror could believe the second inappropriate touching was the fourth or fifth time Walker came into her bedroom. As the instructions were plainly insufficient to establish the level of unanimity required for Walker's conviction, the conviction was reversed on two counts and remanded for a new trial as to those counts.
Nathan Jess Michael Schuerman v. State of Wyoming
2022 WY 160
December 21, 2022
Nathan Schuerman and his girlfriend had a fight and 911 was called. When a patrolman arrived on the scene and encountered him, Schuerman refused to show his hands and almost immediately fled the scene. He got in his truck and led law enforcement officers on a high-speed chase. During the chase, Schuerman drove his truck straight at the patrol car occupied by Deputy Coxbill and only narrowly missed colliding with him. Shortly afterward, Schuerman rolled his truck and was apprehended. A handgun and ammunition were found in the truck.
Schuerman was charged with, inter alia, aggravated assault and battery for attempting to cause serious bodily injury to Deputy Coxbill.
At the pretrial conference, the State proposed a jury instruction for the aggravated assault and battery charge. The proposed instruction described the applicable mental state as "Intentionally OR Knowingly OR Recklessly." Schuerman objected and argued that the words "recklessly" and "knowingly" must be removed from the instruction. The district court took out the word "recklessly" but left in the word "knowingly."
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and held that the district court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that the crime of attempted aggravated assault under W.S. § 6-2-502(a)(i) could be committed knowingly. The Court noted that in order to commit a crime "knowingly," a defendant must commit the crime with knowledge or information about it, but the legislature did not intend to create a general intent attempt crime when it defined attempted aggravated assault. Therefore, to establish the crime of...
To continue reading
Request your trial