Ex-teacher avoids probation revocation

Revocation would be case of double jeopardy, judge finds

Posted 9/18/18

Because she’s already been punished by her probation officer, prosecutors can’t send a Cody woman to prison for violating her conditions of probation, a judge ruled last month.

Katie …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Ex-teacher avoids probation revocation

Revocation would be case of double jeopardy, judge finds

Posted

Because she’s already been punished by her probation officer, prosecutors can’t send a Cody woman to prison for violating her conditions of probation, a judge ruled last month.

Katie Marcus — a former Douglas elementary school teacher who’s on probation for sleeping with a 17-year-old high school student — admitted at an August hearing in Converse County that she’d violated her probation in multiple ways over roughly a year and a half.

Marcus acknowledged that she’d had unauthorized contact with minors (reportedly adding six underage boys as Facebook friends), left the state without permission and drank alcohol.

Converse County prosecutors sought to revoke Marcus’ probation for those violations, which could have potentially resulted in prison time for the 37-year-old Cody resident.

However, Marcus’ probation officer had already punished her by placing her under more intense supervision and Marcus’ defense attorney, Brigita Krisjansons of Cody, argued it would be illegal to punish her client further. Krisjansons noted that, under Wyoming law, authorities can either revoke someone’s probation or, “as an alternative,” sanction them.

“The argument apparently caught [deputy Converse County] prosecutor Joe Russell off guard,” reported the Douglas Budget, which attended the hearing in Douglas, “as he had no response ready for the claim of double jeopardy.”

Presiding District Court Judge Thomas Rumkpe ruled that Krisjansons’ take on the law was correct.

“It is quite concerning the defendant admitted engaging in conduct very similar to the conduct that led to her being charged with, and pleading guilty to, third-degree sexual abuse of [a] minor,” Rumpke wrote in an Aug. 24 order. However, because Marcus had already been sanctioned by her probation officer, the judge said he could not revoke her probation.

Marcus has been on supervised probation since late 2016, when she pleaded guilty to the felony count of sexual abuse. The crime stemmed from Marcus having sex with an 17-year-old boy in late 2013 or early 2014. That sexual contact was illegal because Marcus was working as a special education teacher at a Douglas elementary school and therefore held a position of authority over the Douglas High School student at the time, prosecutors alleged.

Under a deal reached with the Converse County Attorney’s Office and approved by another judge, Marcus’ guilty plea was deferred. As long as she successfully completes four to five years of probation, the felony case will be dismissed, but Marcus has struggled to comply with her conditions.

In July 2017, she was arrested at the Cody Walmart after trying to shoplift more than $150 worth of items. After serving five days in jail, she entered an inpatient alcohol treatment program in Billings — leaving the state without notifying her probation agent.

Russell, the Converse County prosecutor, declined to revoke her probation at that time, court records say.

In May, Marcus reportedly admitted to her probation officer that she’d drank on a “daily basis” from her October 2016 sentencing through July 2017, had gone to Billings at least twice to buy furniture and, although she wasn’t sure if she had permission, had attended events with her children.

Marcus’ current probation officer, Kristine Juergens, later wrote a letter to the court saying that Marcus’ actions “are indicative of someone who is not concerned about losing their [deferred] sentence, or possibly a worse consequence if revoked.”

Marcus was technically placed on intensive supervised probation last year, but due to the local probation and parole office being understaffed, Marcus was not subject to the amount of supervision a participant would normally receive, Juergens told the judge.

After Marcus admitted to the probation violations in May, she was “regressed back to Level I” of the intensive supervised probation “as a sanction,” Juegens wrote in the letter.

That sanction ultimately led to Judge Rumpke tossing out prosecutors’ petition to revoke Marcus’ probation.

Comments