Articles Posted in Civil Rights

by
In this appeal from the juvenile court’s order on permanency hearing, the Supreme Court held that Father was not prejudiced by the juvenile court’s delay in appointing an attorney until shortly before the permanency hearing, and the juvenile court did not err in denying Father’s request for transport to the hearing. At issue on appeal was whether the juvenile court (1) violated Father’s due process rights when it did not advise him of his right to counsel and did not appoint an attorney until shortly before the permanency hearing, and (2) erred in denying Father’s request for transport to attend the hearing in person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court violated a clear rule of law when it failed to advise Father of his right to counsel at his first appearance in the proceeding and failed to act on Father’s initial request for appointment of counsel, but these errors did not materially prejudice Father; and (2) Father’s due process rights were not violated when the juvenile court denied Father’s request for transport to the permanency hearing. View "FH v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for felony possession of anabolic steroids found in a search of his vehicle. On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs found in his vehicle, arguing (1) the peace officer lacked probable cause to stop Defendant; (2) the peach officer lacked subsequent reasonable suspicion to detain; (3) the canine drug sniff while inside Defendant’s vehicle constituted an illegal search and seizure; and (4) the peace officer did not have additional probable cause to search absent the illegal dog sniff. The Supreme Court held that (1) because Appellant failed to present the district court with his arguments about probable cause for the stop or reasonable suspicion to continue his attention, these claims will not be considered on appeal; and (2) the circumstances established probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle, even before the dog indicated there were drugs in the trunk. View "Pier v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault and battery and breach of peace, thus rejecting Defendant’s claims of error on appeal. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court properly instructed the jury regarding the definition of “threatened to use” as defined in Wyoming law; (2) the district court abused its discretion when it admitted uncharged misconduct evidence at trial without first conducting a Gleason analysis, but the error was harmless; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s aggravated assault and battery conviction by presenting evidence that Defendant “threatened to use a drawn deadly weapon” against Gordon Johnson. View "Birch v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s second conviction for kidnapping and affirmed his remaining convictions, holding that Appellant’s convictions and sentences for two counts of kidnapping violate double jeopardy. Appellant was convicted of strangulation of a household member, domestic battery, and two counts of kidnapping. The convictions arose from a single violent episode involving Appellant’s girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged misconduct; (2) the two convictions for kidnapping violated Appellant’s protections against double jeopardy because Appellant’s actions supported only one continuing kidnapping offense; and (3) the separate convictions for domestic battery and strangulation of a household member did not violate Appellant’s protections against double jeopardy because Appellant did not satisfy his burden to prove that the two convictions were based on the same incident. View "Volpi v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of one count of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The jury in this case concluded that Appellant committed sexual intrusion upon a non-consenting victim whom Appellant knew or had reason to believe was physically helpless. On appeal, Appellant argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to inadmissible evidence, failing to adequately advance her theory of the case, and failing to suppress the statements made by Appellant when under investigative detention. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in her representation of Appellant. View "Bruckner v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that led to Defendant’s conviction for marijuana possession. Corporal Bradley Halter stopped Defendant for a traffic violation. When Defendant attempted to walk away from the traffic stop, Corporal Halter handcuffed Defendant. Because Defendant smelled of marijuana and was impaired, Corporal conducted a search of Defendant’s person, which produced methamphetamine, and, after a subsequent search, marijuana and hashish. After the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant entered a conditional plea to the possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Corporal Halter’s seizure of the methpahetamine and subsequent search was supported by both the plain feel doctrine and by standard probable cause considerations. View "Maestas v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that led to Defendant’s conviction for marijuana possession. Corporal Bradley Halter stopped Defendant for a traffic violation. When Defendant attempted to walk away from the traffic stop, Corporal Halter handcuffed Defendant. Because Defendant smelled of marijuana and was impaired, Corporal conducted a search of Defendant’s person, which produced methamphetamine, and, after a subsequent search, marijuana and hashish. After the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant entered a conditional plea to the possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Corporal Halter’s seizure of the methpahetamine and subsequent search was supported by both the plain feel doctrine and by standard probable cause considerations. View "Maestas v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the marijuana Trooper Aaron Kirlin discovered in Appellant’s possession during a traffic stop on Interstate 80. Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, preserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Appellant argued that Trooper Kirlin unlawfully detained him beyond the original purpose of the traffic stop in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Trooper Kirlin’s extended contact with Appellant was a consensual encounter that did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "Kennison v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court remanded this case for a new hearing under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), holding that the district court clearly erred by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude an African American from the jury. The record supported the validity of only one of the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for his peremptory challenge and did not show that the district court would credit this reason alone. Specifically, one of the prosecutor’s two explanations for the peremptory challenge upon which the district court relied failed, and the record did not show that the district court would find that the prosecutor was motivated solely by the valid grounds. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a new Batson hearing in which the district court must reassess the prosecutor’s credibility in light of the discrepancy between the record and his explanation. View "Roberts v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court remanded this case for a new hearing under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), holding that the district court clearly erred by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude an African American from the jury. The record supported the validity of only one of the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for his peremptory challenge and did not show that the district court would credit this reason alone. Specifically, one of the prosecutor’s two explanations for the peremptory challenge upon which the district court relied failed, and the record did not show that the district court would find that the prosecutor was motivated solely by the valid grounds. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a new Batson hearing in which the district court must reassess the prosecutor’s credibility in light of the discrepancy between the record and his explanation. View "Roberts v. State" on Justia Law