Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kite, Chief Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] In these consolidated appeals, Mr. Tilley challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of six counts of sexual assault committed years ago against four different victims and one count of aggravated burglary against one of the victims. We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions and, therefore, affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Tilley presents the following issue, phrased as a statement:
The State failed to present sufficient evidence during the trial to prove the essential elements of the crimes which would cause the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State phrases the issue as:
Did the State present sufficient evidence at Tilley's trial for the jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all sexual assault charges and of aggravated burglary?
[¶3] While investigating other incidents, a Big Horn County law enforcement officer learned that several victims claimed Mr. Tilley had sexually assaulted them many years earlier. In 2009, the State charged Mr. Tilley with two counts of first degree sexual assault of AF in late 1980/early 1981 (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-302(a)(i) (Michie 1977));*fn1 one count of first degree rape and one count of immoral acts with a child, GB, in 1976 (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-63(A) (Michie 1957) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-28 (Michie 1957), respectively); and two counts of immoral acts with a child, SK, in 1974 or 1975 (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-28 (Michie 1957). In 2010, the State charged Mr. Tilley, under a different docket number, with one count of first degree sexual assault of MKJ and one count of aggravated burglary of her residence in 1984 (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-302(a)(i) (Michie 1977) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-301(a) (Michie 1983), respectively). The cases were joined for trial.
[¶4] At the conclusion of a six day trial, the jury found Mr. Tilley guilty of all counts. The district court subsequently sentenced Mr. Tilley to a lengthy period of incarceration. Mr. Tilley appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. More facts will be described in the discussion of the issue on appeal.
[¶5] This Court applies the following standard of review to claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a criminal conviction:
[W]e examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the defendant. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury; rather, we determine whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or circumstantial.
Anderson v. State, 2009 WY 119, ¶ 6, 216 P.3d 1143, 1145 (Wyo. 2009), quoting Martin v. State, 2007 WY 2, ¶ 32, 149 P.3d 707, 715 (Wyo. 2007) [abrogated on other grounds by Granzer v. State, 2010 WY 130, 239 P.3d 640 (Wyo. 2010)].
Dawes v. State, 2010 WY 113, ¶ 17, 236 P.3d 303, 307 (Wyo. 2010). See also Daves v. State, 2011 WY 47, ¶ 30, ...