Full Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2026 WY 83 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2026 July 17, 2026 STEVEN RANDALL MARLER, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-25-0239 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County The Honorable Kerri M. Johnson, Judge Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Brandon T. Booth, State Public Defender*; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Patricia L. Bennett, Deputy State Public Defender; Argument by Ms. Bennett. Representing Appellee: Keith G. Kautz, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Jones. * An Order Allowing Withdrawal of Counsel for Brandon T. Booth was entered on July 16, 2026. Before BOOMGAARDEN, C.J., GRAY, FENN, JAROSH, and HILL, 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. JAROSH, Justice. [¶1] A jury convicted Steven Randall Marler of eight counts of sexual abuse and six counts of battery involving several of his adopted children and a foster child placed in his care. Mr. Marler appealed, alleging the district court abused its discretion in various decisions it made regarding the admissibility of evidence. He also alleges that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during the direct examination of one of the victims. Finding no error, we affirm. ISSUES [¶2] Mr. Marler raises five issues, which we rephrase as: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing multiple witnesses to testify to “other acts” evidence under Wyoming Rule of Evidence (W.R.E.) 404(b)? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by not allowing defense counsel to question KPM related to an incident of untruthfulness? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by not allowing defense counsel to play the entirety of an interview of Mr. Marler during trial? 4. Did the State engage in prosecutorial misconduct by impermissibly eliciting testimony about a victim’s father’s suicide? 5. Did cumulative error deprive Mr. Marler of a fair trial? FACTS Background [¶3] Mr. Marler and his wife Kristen Marler fostered dozens of children from 2008-2022 and legally adopted eight children during that time. The Marlers also have three adult biological children. [¶4] In 2016, one of the girls in the Marlers’ care, AW, reported sexual abuse, but no charges were filed. In 2021 another girl, KAM, also reported sexual abuse. Once again, no charges were filed. In 2023, a third girl in the Marlers’ care, KPM, reported sexual abuse. Following an investigation, the State charged Mr. Marler with seventeen criminal offenses, detailed in the chart below: 1 Count Crime Statute Victim Allegation One 2nd Degree Sexual § 6-2-315(a)(iv) KPM Marler touched Abuse of a Minor KPM’s vagina Two 3rd Degree Sexual § 6-2-316(a)(iv) KPM Marler rubbed Abuse of a Minor his penis against KPM’s buttocks Three 2nd Degree Sexual § 6-2-315(a)(iv) KPM Marler rubbed Abuse of a Minor and grabbed KPM’s chest and rubbed his groin against her buttocks Four 2nd Degree Sexual § 6-2-315(a)(iv) AW Marler touched Abuse of a Minor AW’s vagina Five 1st Degree Sexual § 6-2-314(a)(i) AW Marler digitally Abuse of a Minor and (c)(i) penetrated AW’s vagina Six 2nd Degree Sexual § 6-2-315(a)(iv) KAM Marler touched Abuse of a Minor KAM’s vagina Seven 3rd Degree Sexual § 6-2-316(a)(iv) KAM Marled laid on, Abuse of a Minor moved against KAM while she was naked Eight 3rd Degree Sexual § 6-2-316(a)(iv) KAM Marler, while Abuse of a Minor naked, touched KAM “everywhere” Nine 2nd Degree Sexual § 6-2-315(a)(iv) KAM Marler placed Abuse of a Minor KAM’s hand on his penis Ten 1st Degree Sexual § 6-2-314(a)(iii) KAM Marler put his Abuse of a Minor penis into KAM’s vagina Eleven 3rd Degree Sexual § 6-2-316(a)(iv) DW Marler Abuse of a Minor removed DW’s pants Twelve Battery § 6-2-501(b) KOM Marler punched KOM in the nose Thirteen Child Endangerment § 6-4-403(a)(ii) RFM Marler kicked RFM off a roof 2 and did not get him medical attention Fourteen Battery § 6-2-501(b) RDM Marler rubbed RDM’s face in the snow Fifteen Battery § 6-2-501(b) AW Marler hit AW with a broom Sixteen Battery § 6-2-501(b) KAM Marler struck and kicked KAM Seventeen Battery § 6-2-501(b) RGM Marler struck RGM with a rubber strip A jury convicted Mr. Marler of fourteen of the seventeen crimes charged. 1 Pretrial proceedings and Rule 404(b) rulings. [¶5] Before trial, the State filed four separate notices of its intent to introduce evidence pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Evidence (W.R.E.) 404(b). In the State’s first notice, it stated its intent to introduce evidence that Mr. Marler requested reciprocal massages from the children he referred to as the “daddy tax.” The State argued the “daddy tax” massage evidence was relevant to the sexual abuse charges to show Mr. Marler’s motive of sexual gratification, course of conduct, intent to exploit his victims, opportunity to interact with the children without his wife, lack of mistake, and plan or scheme of grooming conduct, “with the ultimate goal of forming a connection and reduction of the child’s inhibitions to prepare the child for sexual activity.” The State further argued this evidence was not cumulative because each child would describe their own experience. In his response Mr. Marler did not dispute that the children gave him massages. However, he argued the acts of sitting on the girls and giving nude massages with lotion in his bedroom did not happen. He argued this evidence would confuse the jury as to the difference between uncharged touching and the charged conduct. [¶6] The second notice explained the State’s intent to offer evidence in the form of testimony from the children that Mr. Marler used a series of punishments to “manipulate and control” them, such as spankings with rubber, wood, brooms, and belts that caused welts; excessive exercise; and withholding food. The State argued the punishments were part of a plan or scheme to ensure silence out of fear and showed a course of conduct. The State also argued these acts showed Mr. Marler’s plan and scheme to commit sexual abuse, as well as his plan to avoid disclosure. Mr. Marler objected to this evidence, stating it 1 The shaded gray portions of the chart indicate the charges for which the jury acquitted Mr. Marler. 3 lacked a proper purpose, and argued the State had not shown how those punishments were connected to alleged sexual abuse. [¶7] In its third notice, the State explained it intended to introduce evidence of uncharged incidents of Mr. Marler touching the children, watching them shower and showering with them, and watching them undress. The State asserted this evidence was relevant to show course of conduct generally, as well as motive for Mr. Marler’s “sexual gratification, his plan and scheme to groom the victims, his pattern of behavior,” and to “bolster the victim’s credibility.” The State argued these episodes were “necessary preliminaries” to the sexual abuse and intrinsic to the charged crimes. Further, the evidence served to establish the nature of the relationships, demonstrate grooming, and show motive. Mr. Marler objected, arguing the events did not happen and the evidence would confuse the jury because they were “crimes that are indistinguishable from the charged conduct.” [¶8] Finally, in the State’s fourth notice, it sought to introduce evidence of Mr. Marler forcing the children to remain silent about abuse in the home by repeatedly threatening, manipulating, and abusing them if they did not lie to others. The State alleged Mr. Marler threatened, manipulated, beat, and isolated the children to prevent disclosure of the abuse, and this evidence was relevant to show plan, motive, intent, lack of mistake, and Mr. Marler’s guilty conscience. In response, Mr. Marler argued these events did not happen, and he would suffer prejudice if they were admitted. [¶9] The district court held a hearing, and in a lengthy written order, concluded that much of the proposed Rule 404(b) evidence was admissible. First, the court held the “daddy tax” massage evidence was relevant to show “motive, intent, [and] course of conduct,” and to show how “innocent requests for massages evolved into sexual contact.” The district court also found the evidence was relevant because Mr. Marler disputed the sexual assault allegations. The court found the evidence was not unnecessarily cumulative, and after weighing several factors, concluded it was more probative than prejudicial, given its ability to show “family dynamics.” [¶10] As to the second notice, the court held evidence of punishments such as “spankings with objects, withholding food, excessive exercise in cold temperatures, punching or striking the children and withholding visits by biological relatives” was relevant to show Mr. Marler’s opportunity, intent, and motive to gain acquiescence from the victims. The court concluded it was also relevant to show Mr. Marler’s “alleged plan and course of conduct to instill fear and create a culture of silence in the children” so they would not disclose any physical or sexual abuse. In addition, the court found the evidence was relevant to explain the history of events that led up to and continued during the sexual abuse, and to explain why the children lied or delayed disclosure. Further, the court deemed the evidence relevant to show Mr. Marler’s “exertion of his authority over the members of his household.” The district court found the evidence of the children’s punishments was not cumulative and was more probative than prejudicial because it 4 showed intent as alleged in the case. It was also important to show motive and course of conduct, and illustrated the history of the relationship between Mr. Marler and the children. [¶11] Next, as to the third notice, the district court found the evidence of other incidents of touching or observing the children in stages of undress was relevant to show motive for sexual gratification and was evidence of grooming. According to the district court, this evidence was also relevant to show course of conduct and plan and scheme to normalize his behavior with his victims. The court concluded that the evidence also showed the history of the relationship between the parties and how it allegedly “progressed from him watching, to touching, to ultimately sexual contact or intrusion.” Because Mr. Marler denied all the sexual allegations against him, this evidence was not unnecessarily cumulative and was “particularly probative” on issues of motive and intent. [¶12] Finally, regarding the fourth notice, the district court found evidence of “threats, manipulation, beatings, and isolation” was relevant to show Mr. Marler’s intent and motive to “gain acquiescence” by the victims. They were part of Mr. Marler’s plan and course of conduct to “instill fear” and “create a culture of silence” so the children would not disclose the abuse. The court also found the evidence was not unnecessarily cumulative and was more probative than prejudicial. [¶13] The district court’s order also specified which witness could testify to each uncharged act, and that each witness could only testify to events they witnessed or participated in personally. With respect to instructing the jury on the admitted Rule 404(b) evidence, the parties agreed to the district court’s proposal to give a long-form limiting instruction before opening statements and a short-form instruction before each witness testified regarding other acts under Rule 404(b). Trial [¶14] Mr. Marler’s jury trial lasted eleven days. As planned, the court read the long-form jury instruction regarding Rule 404(b) evidence at the beginning of trial. Mr. Marler denied the sexual abuse allegations and claimed the children “fabricate[d] the sexual assault allegations” because they wanted to leave the Marler house and return to their biological families. Many of the adopted and foster children testified at trial, as well as law enforcement, and one of Mr. Marler’s biological children. The pertinent testimony from the witnesses follows. AW Testimony [¶15] AW testified first. Mr. Marler was charged with three charges related to AW: one charge each of first- and second-degree sexual abuse against a minor, and one battery charge (counts four, five, and fourteen). AW came to the Marlers in May 2013 at age nine, along with her biological sisters. She stayed with the Marlers until April 2014. During her 5 testimony, AW detailed her “very strained” relationship with the Marlers. The State then announced it would introduce Rule 404(b) evidence, and the district court read the following short form instruction: Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear other acts evidence. You are instructed that you may not use this other acts evidence to decide whether the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crimes charged in this case – that last line should be crossed out there. Remember, even if you find that the defendant may have committed other acts in the past, this is not evidence that he may have committed the crimes charged within this case. You may not convict a person simply because you believe he committed others acts in the past. The defendant is on trial for only the crimes charged. And you may consider the evidence of prior acts only on the issue of motive, intent, course of conduct, plan, or scheme. [¶16] AW described the “daddy tax” massages imposed by Mr. Marler. AW stated she, KAM, and KOM would straddle Mr. Marler and give him shoulder and back massages “a [c]ouple times a week,” and Mr. Marler would do the same to the girls. She testified no boys were involved in the massages. [¶17] AW also described discipline the children received in the form of being required to stand for long periods of time, and “severe exercise, restrictions to food, being locked in our rooms.” She also detailed an occasion when Mr. Marler made her run outside in the snow while only wearing pajamas and socks, and another time when Mr. Marler hit her on the left side of her torso with a broom handle and left bruises after she dropped something while cleaning the garage. AW reported the physical abuse to her biological mother, and together they reported the abuse to AW’s caseworker. [Id. at 478-80]. She recalled, though, “everything that we told our caseworker was told back to the Marlers, and we were disciplined for it when we got home that day.” [¶18] AW then described the alleged sexual abuse Mr. Marler inflicted upon her. She testified that Mr. Marler touched her inappropriately “at least more than ten times,” and described a specific instance when Mr. Marler “rubbed up his hand up my leg of my pajama pants … and over the crotch area of my pajamas [with] a hole in the crotch.” Mr. Marler then allegedly rubbed her vagina and penetrated her vagina with his fingers. AW did not tell her mother about the alleged sexual abuse until much later “because of the results of trying to tell about the physical abuse.” She added that Mr. Marler told her she would be in trouble if she “told anybody what was going on.” [¶19] During AW’s testimony, the State briefly asked her about her father’s death: Q: Shifting gears just a little bit. Before you got to the Marlers, had your father passed away? 6 A: Yes. Q: Were you still dealing with the emotions of your father’s passing at – when you were with the Marlers? A: To a degree, yes. Q: Were you – did Mr. Marler ever console you about them? A: No. Q: Would he ever go into your room and console you about them? A: No. I did not talk about my father’s passing with anybody. Q. You didn’t talk with anyone in the home about your father’s passing? A. No. Q. Okay. Did he ever pray with you? A. Praying was a constant thing in the household for everybody, it wasn’t just me individually. Q. Did he ever pray with you in your bedroom? A. No. Q: When did you become aware of your father’s suicide? A: I wasn’t aware that it was a suicide until I was in my early teenage years. Q: Around 12, 13? A: Yes. Q: Okay. How were you told about your father’s suicide? A: It was a thing that had been brought up in family therapy at the time, and my mom had finally told us what had really happened. We just knew that my dad had passed away, and we were never told the specifics of how. [¶20] During cross-examination, Mr. Marler impeached AW using forensic interview transcripts from 2016 and 2023, and she acknowledged several discrepancies between her trial testimony and previous statements. The discrepancies included how soon after she arrived at the Marlers the inappropriate touching began, how often the inappropriate touching occurred, and why she had a hole in her pajamas. The jury found Mr. Marler not guilty of both sexual abuse charges against AW, but found him guilty of battery for hitting her with the broom handle. KOM Testimony [¶21] KOM testified next. Mr. Marler was charged with one charge of battery (count 12) against KOM for punching her in the nose. The Marlers adopted KOM when she was three years old, and at the time of trial, she was sixteen. After KOM described the Marler home and a typical day living there, the State informed the district court it was going to elicit Rule 404(b) testimony from her. As a result, the district court read the short-form Rule 404(b) jury instruction for a second time. [¶22] KOM testified that the Marlers imposed several forms of punishment on the children. KOM stated she was often hungry because meals were frequently taken away as 7 punishment. The children were also made to “exercise for very long periods of time, like, lifting weights … [performing] ups and downs … high knees” and “circuits.” The circuits were “a hundred jumping jacks, a hundred lunges, a hundred squats, a hundred push-ups, a hundred mountain climbs, and a hundred sit-ups.” Spanking was also used as discipline, and the Marlers would use a belt, a board, or a piece of rubber to spank KOM on her bare buttocks. [¶23] KOM then testified about the “daddy tax” massages and explained how Mr. Marler would lay down and have the children massage his back, calves, and feet. KOM explained how Mr. Marler favored KAM over the other children and spent more time in both KAM’s and KPM’s beds. KOM also sometimes saw KAM and KPM go into the master bedroom at night when Mrs. Marler was not home. However, KOM testified she never saw Mr. Marler touch anyone inappropriately. [¶24] KOM then testified about an incident when Mr. Marler punched her in the face. She was about ten years old at the time and had gone into the boys’ bedroom. Mr. Marler observed this from outside and was “very upset” when he came inside the house. He then punched KOM in the face with his fist. KOM agreed on cross-examination that until 2024, she told people that Mr. Marler accidentally hit her. She explained she was afraid to talk about what happened at the house because “it would usually come back to [Mr. and Mrs. Marler] and we would get in trouble.” She admitted not being “forthcoming” in two interviews in 2023 because she was fearful of being sent back to the Marler home after having left. KOM also admitted that during an interview with a Department of Family Services investigator after being removed from the Marler home, she “lied in probably everything [she] said” because she was scared to go back to the Marlers. [¶25] Mr. Marler was found guilty of battery against KOM. KJM Testimony [¶26] The State’s next witness was KJM, who was not a victim of any of the charged offenses. KJM was placed with the Marlers when she was six years old, and the Marlers later adopted her. The district court did not give the short-form Rule 404(b) jury instruction before or during KJM’s testimony. [¶27] KJM first testified about the home in general, including the children’s sleeping arrangements. She stated she observed KAM and KPM go into Mr. Marler’s bedroom when Mrs. Marler was not home. KJM testified KAM and KPM would stay in Mr. Marler’s bedroom for “multiple hours” or even all night. [¶28] KJM then described an incident when Mr. Marler held RDM “by the neck … and the back of the head, and then just put him in the snow face down.” KJM also testified that 8 she did not see Mr. Marler punch KOM, but she did observe KOM’s injured nose afterwards. [¶29] Regarding the conditions in the home, KJM testified that toward the end of her time with the Marlers, the children were required to sleep on mattresses in the library “for quite a few months” after being caught stealing food. She explained the children stole food because “there would be times when we wouldn’t really get fed.” [¶30] After leaving the Marler house, KJM acknowledged she lied during a 2023 interview when she stated she did not have any issues at the home. She explained she was afraid she would be returned to the Marler home and disciplined with spanking or “not getting fed.” Sergeant Taylor Courtney Testimony [¶31] Sergeant Taylor Courtney testified next for the State. He explained that after AW alleged physical and sexual abuse in 2016, he conducted a video interview with Mr. Marler. The State sought to introduce four audio clips from that interview, which the district court allowed, and all four clips were played in front of the jury. During the interview, Mr. Marler admitted he spanked the children but did not recall ever hitting anyone with a broom. He also denied any sexual contact with AW, but acknowledged laying down with her to pray about her father’s death. [¶32] Sergeant Courtney testified that during interviews he looks for patterns in people’s speech, “because it can indicate hesitation. … It’s an indication or a clue to an investigator if a person starts hesitating, stuttering, and doing things like that. That can indicate that they’re struggling with a response.” He indicated he observed hesitation from Mr. Marler when he was asking about the spankings. [¶33] After the State’s direct examination of Sergeant Courtney, Mr. Marler requested the entire 2016 recorded interview be played for the jury under the rule of completeness. He argued that because the State asked questions related to Mr. Marler’s “honesty or evasiveness,” the entire interview should be played for the jury. Id. The court declined Mr. Marler’s request to play the interview in its entirety but did allow Mr. Marler to ask Sergeant Courtney about the interview as a whole. Investigator Lisa Lauderdale Testimony [¶34] The State next called Investigator Lisa Lauderdale of the Natrona County Sheriff’s Office to testify about a 2021 investigation of Mr. Marler and her continued involvement in the case since that time. Investigator Lauderdale obtained a search warrant for the Marlers’ home and seized a DVR recording system that had been used to film inside the home. 9 [¶35] In May 2023, the Department of Family Services notified Investigator Lauderdale that KPM alleged Mr. Marler had inappropriate contact with her. Investigator Lauderdale conducted an initial interview with KPM and arranged for a forensic interview. Ultimately, she conducted over 100 interviews, including interviews with seven of the other children. [¶36] In January 2025, the Sheriff’s Office evaluated 1,526 video clips extracted from the DVR that was seized in 2021. All the videos were from 2020 and 2021, and the State played several of those videos for the jury during Investigator Lauderdale’s testimony. She described each of the videos played for the jury. One exhibit showed Mr. Marler leading RBM out of the library where children were sleeping, and then Mr. Marler and RBM returning to the room. When they returned, RBM was naked and had injuries on the side of his body; Mr. Marler was holding a belt. Another exhibit showed Mr. Marler hitting RBM, KAM, and another child. And another exhibit showed Mr. Marler coming into the library, lying face down in the middle of the girls’ mattress where they were sleeping, and then four girls moving on top of Mr. Marler and massaging his back, thighs, and legs. [¶37] On cross-examination, Mr. Marler asked Investigator Lauderdale about an interview of KPM that took place at the regional juvenile detention center after KPM had been arrested. Investigator Lauderdale stated KPM said she was sexually abused by Mr. Marler while Mrs. Marler was away on a trip, but that was all she remembered about the incident. KPM also reported she wanted to live with her biological dad rather than the Marlers. Investigator Lauderdale also testified about her interviews with the other children. KOM and KJM did not report sexual abuse, and KOM first said Mr. Marler accidentally hit her in the nose but then changed her story after she had been out of the house for a while. RBM did not share any concerns about living with the Marlers. KAM Testimony [¶38] KAM then testified. Mr. Marler was charged with six counts involving KAM – one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree, and one count of battery (counts six through ten and count sixteen). KAM arrived at the Marler house in 2010 when she was seven or eight years old, and the Marlers later adopted her. She testified that at first her relationship with Mr. Marler was “normal” and he was like “a parent.” The State then notified the court it would introduce Rule 404(b) evidence, and the court again read the short-form Rule 404(b) jury instruction. [¶39] KAM explained how things changed after she was adopted. As more children came into the home, “more restrictions were made” and “more rules were put in place.” KAM was pulled from public school shortly after she arrived at the home. KAM testified that “[a]ll the cupboards were locked. Cameras were put up, alarms were put up, and we had less freedom.” She explained the children were given limited time to use the bathroom and 10 were required to keep the door open when they did, and that an adult supervised. Also, the children were made to change their clothes with the door open, and Mr. Marler sometimes watched. [¶40] KAM also testified that after she was adopted discipline became “more aggressive.” She explained punishment in the form of exercise, including “running up and down the stairs for long periods of time, circuits of a hundred sets of push-ups, sit-ups, squats, lunges, jumping jacks.” She also testified there were spankings, including sometimes “more than twenty times,” with boards, rubber strips, and belts. KAM testified that the Marlers often made the children stand for long periods of time as a form of punishment. KAM stated the discipline was often after the children stole food or were disrespectful. [¶41] KAM also testified about her physical relationship with Mr. Marler, and that after she was adopted she “became more of a partner, romantically.” She described the “daddy tax” massages and stated “all the kids” would rub Mr. Marler’s back, arms, shoulders, legs and feet. She also stated she and KPM would often give Mr. Marler massages alone in his bedroom or their bedroom. In those instances, after KAM rubbed lotion on Mr. Marler’s shoulders, back, inner thighs, upper thighs, calves, and feet, he would tell her to remove her clothes, and then he would rub lotion on her “arms, shoulders, back, inner and upper thigh, [ ] butt, calves, and [ ]feet.” Mr. Marler began massaging KPM when she was around age nine, ten, or eleven. They also showered together “a couple of times,” and Mr. Marler would ask her to wash his legs, back, and buttocks with a sponge. KAM witnessed Mr. Marler touch KPM “inappropriately” as well, and Mr. Marler would ask both KAM and KPM to spend the night in his room if his wife was not home. [¶42] KAM also described the first time Mr. Marler touched her genitals when she was ten or eleven years old. KAM testified Mr. Marler took off her pajama pants and underwear, then rubbed her legs and thighs, and “just kept getting closer and closer” until he touched KAM’s vagina and pelvic bone. She also testified that when she was thirteen or fourteen years old, she woke from a deep sleep to find Mr. Marler on top of her “grinding” on her pelvic bone while moaning. Mr. Marler pulled down his underwear, but KAM asked him to stop “because it hurt.” [¶43] KAM described another incident that happened in Mr. Marler’s bed when she was a teenager. As they were both naked after giving each other massages, Mr. Marler was laying on top of KAM when he began “humping” KAM and the bed. His penis was touching KAM’s hip, after which KAM “felt wetness in the bed,” but did not know why. Another time, when she was fifteen, after massages had occurred and their clothing was off, Mr. Marler grabbed KAM’s hand and put it on his penis and moved her hand up and down. [¶44] The “worst” sexual encounter occurred when KAM was fifteen. After a massage, Mr. Marler “humped” and “grinded” on top of KAM, who was naked. Mr. Marler then 11 pulled down his underwear so his penis was touching KAM, and “he kept going harder and harder and harder and faster, and it really hurt.” At one point, he “rammed” his penis inside KAM, and she felt “extreme pain.” She said Mr. Marler then stopped, apologized, and left. [¶45] KAM testified that she was afraid to talk about what happened in the Marler house “because they always found out … and we would be severely punished.” Mr. Marler told KAM not to talk about him touching her because people would try to separate them and no one would “understand [their] love.” He also told her, “he shouldn’t love [her] like this but he can’t stop.” In 2016, when police came to the home to investigate AW’s allegations, KAM spoke to police but was not honest because she was “scared to tell them anything of what was really going on,” because she “still wanted to win [Mr. and Mrs. Marler’s] favor.” [¶46] When KAM was around fifteen, she left the Marlers home after she told them she would call the police unless they let her leave. She said Mr. Marler was “moving on to the other girls and younger girls,” and also that her “feet were starting to swell really bad from standing” and she was “starving.” KAM moved to the Cowboy Challenge Academy and while there, in 2021, reported the physical and sexual abuse she endured at the Marler house. She was “reluctant to speak” because she did not want to return to the Marlers and “didn’t know who the good guys were at the time.” [¶47] On cross-examination, KAM was impeached with information that conflicted with some of her testimony, including whether the reason she did not want to return to the Marlers was because she had fallen in love with a fellow academy cadet and worried she would not be allowed to date him. [¶48] The jury found Mr. Marler guilty of all charges relating to KAM. RBM Testimony [¶49] RBM was not a victim of any charges but was placed with the Marlers when he was nine months old. He was eighteen at the time of trial. The court did not give the short- form Rule 404(b) jury instruction during RBM’s testimony. [¶50] RBM first testified about his observations of Mr. Marler treating the girls differently than the boys. He said Mr. Marler favored the girls with candy and other privileges. RBM also testified he observed KAM and KPM go into Mr. Marler’s bedroom when Mrs. Marler was away but never saw any sexual abuse. RBM testified about punishments he received or observed. He stated that Mr. Marler spanked him with a belt, a piece of wood, and a piece of rubber, and that he was subjected to exercise circuits that were “kind of” excessive. RGM Testimony 12 [¶51] Mr. Marler was charged with one count of battery against RGM (count seventeen). RGM testified he lived with the Marlers for eleven years, beginning when he was three or four years old. The district court did not give the short-form 404(b) jury instruction during RGM’s testimony. [¶52] RGM testified about the discipline imposed in the household. He stated the children frequently stole food because they were hungry, as the Marlers would withhold meals as punishment. RGM also described the punishments Mr. Marler administered after the children were caught stealing food. According to RGM, Mr. Marler spanked the children with either a piece of wood trim or a strip of rubber like something cut from a truck’s mud flap. The children were required to pull down their underwear before the spanking, which was usually administered to the buttocks but sometimes on the lower back or head. RGM recounted one occasion when Mr. Marler struck him on the back of the head with the rubber strip multiple times, causing a cut to his head. [¶53] RGM further testified that KAM was Mr. Marler’s favorite child. He stated that when she asked for food for the children, Mr. Marler would grant the request, whereas he would not do so for the other children. After KAM left the Marlers’ home, KPM became Mr. Marler’s favorite child. [¶54] During cross-examination, Mr. Marler questioned RGM about his time in counseling and his placement at various institutions. RGM acknowledged that he had not reported the abuse in those settings. RGM explained he could not recall “every little detail” about “a decade of trauma” during that 2023 interview and that his memories became clearer over time. [¶55] The jury found Mr. Marler guilty of one count of battery for striking RGM with a rubber strip. RFM Testimony [¶56] RFM was the victim of one count of child endangerment against Mr. Marler (count thirteen). RFM testified he came to live with the Marlers at age four or five, and the Marlers adopted him when he was seven. The court did not give the short-form 404(b) jury instruction during his testimony. [¶57] RFM testified that the Marlers used exercise circuits, and spankings with firewood, a leather belt, and a rubber slab for punishment. Mr. Marler “believed in group punishment. If somebody did something, then everybody got punished.” RFM testified he bled from the spankings he received “a few times.” [¶58] RFM testified that Mr. Marler once kicked him off a roof as he was clearing snow. Mr. Marler yelled that he was going too slow and then kicked him in the back. RFM slid 13 down the roof, and a piece of metal sliced his upper thigh, peeling the skin back and leaving a “sizeable gash.” He then fell off the roof. [¶59] RFM also testified that Mr. Marler favored the girls, often calling KAM and KPM into his bedroom where they would stay thirty minutes to an hour. RFM could hear moaning, crying, and talking. RFM stated he never told law enforcement about these incidents because “they wouldn’t believe us.” Before police would arrive at the house, Mr. Marler told the children to “say nothing is going on.” [¶60] On cross-examination, RFM agreed that even though he said he “rarely” left the house, he went to restaurants, church, and doctor visits. RFM never reported his leg injury because Mr. Marler told him not to. [¶61] The jury found Mr. Marler guilty of child endangerment for kicking RFM off the roof. RDM Testimony [¶62] RDM was the victim of a battery charge against Mr. Marler (count fourteen). RDM testified he lived with the Marlers from approximately age two until age fourteen. The court did not give the short-form 404(b) jury instruction during his testimony. [¶63] RDM described the children’s living conditions and