Whether state kidnapping statutes unconstitutionally reallocate the burden of proof for extended imprisonment terms and violate due process by requiring defendants to disprove aggravating predicates

The Wyoming Supreme Court has consistently decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of other state courts of last resort and, more importantly, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 113 (2013), the Court appeared to put to rest any confusion as to what constitutes an element of a crime by explaining, if a fact is by law essential to the penalty, it is an element of the offense and that, "the core crime and the fact[s] triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which must be submitted to the jury." Id. Despite the Courts holding, some States continue to reallocate the burden of proof with respect to its graded offenses —forcing defendants to disprove aggravating factual predicates to mitigate ones' sentence. An affirmative defense with mitigating circumstances is an aspect that was left unaddressed in Alleyne. The affirmative defense sentence mitigation issue in Patterson v. New York . 432 U.S. 197 (1977), was wrongly decided and deserves universal criticism because it continues to allow States to manipulate substantive elements of crimes. As Justice O'Connor wrote in her Apprendi v. New Jersey dissent, 530 U.S. at 544, it would require the Court to overrule, at a minimum, decisions like Patterson and Walton v. Arizona . 497 U.S. 639 (1990). Justice O'Connor's intuition was spot-on —PFa/ton and a host of others have since been overruled in the wake of Apprendi and its progeny. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court should resolve a controversial split, amongst State Courts of Last Resort, when State kidnapping statutes, having been influenced by federal law, unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment by reallocating the burden of proof, requiring defendants to disprove aggravating predicates by a while other States constitutionally mandate the State establish those same factual predicates 2. Whether Wyoming Statute § 6-2-201 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness (due process) as written and applied, because the statutes inconsistent interpretations and contradictory applications violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and are contrary to the holdings in Alleyne v. United States (2013); Apprendi v. New Jersey (2IYYSY, and Mullaney v. Wilbur (1915}. 3. Whether this Court's decision in Patterson v. New York . 432 U.S. 197 (1977), should be clarified, limited or overruled. i RELATED CASES Reay v. State, 176 P.3d 647; 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 15 (2008), Wyoming Supreme Court (Direct Appeal). Judgment entered February 08, 2008 Rea y v. Norris, No. S-25-0056, Wyoming Supreme Court. Judgment entered March 25, 2025. ii