## Facts

- Mike Padilla was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual assault arising from a single episode with a 15-year-old: (1) forcible sexual intercourse and (2) forcible fellatio.
- Padilla did not dispute that the sexual acts occurred; he claimed both were voluntary and not accomplished through force.
- A joint co-defendant, Paul Rodriguez, pled guilty to a reduced charge and testified for the State.
- Rodriguez testified that Padilla held the victim by the wrists, requested fellatio, slapped her when she refused, threatened to slap her again if she did not comply, and that she was crying and kicking during the act.
- The jury acquitted Padilla of forcible intercourse but convicted him of forcible fellatio.

## Issues

1. Whether the acquittal on the forcible intercourse count legally negated the force element for the forcible fellatio conviction because the proof of force was allegedly identical for both counts.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by limiting impeachment of the victim with alleged inconsistent preliminary-hearing testimony where no transcript existed and no adequate offer of proof was made.

## Decision

- The conviction for first-degree sexual assault by forcible fellatio was affirmed.
- The verdicts were not legally inconsistent because the counts involved separate acts of sexual penetration that the jury could evaluate independently for force and consent.
- The evidence, including Rodriguez’s testimony about restraint, slapping, threats, and the victim’s resistance, supported the finding of force as to the fellatio count.
- No reversible error occurred in the impeachment ruling because the defendant did not preserve the claim with a sufficient record, including an adequate offer of proof.

## Legal Principles

- Separate acts of sexual penetration charged as separate counts may yield different verdicts on force and consent without creating a reversible inconsistency.
- An acquittal on one count does not preclude conviction on another count arising from the same episode when the acts and evidentiary showings are distinct.
- A claim of erroneous exclusion or limitation of impeachment by prior inconsistent statement requires preservation through an adequate offer of proof and a record sufficient for appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Padilla’s conviction for forcible fellatio because the jury could rationally find force as to that act while finding intercourse consensual, and because the defendant failed to preserve any claimed error regarding impeachment without a transcript or adequate proffer of the alleged inconsistent statements.


Padilla v. State, 601 P.2d 189 (Wyo. 1979)