Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty to fifty years in prison for the attempted murder and to a term of fifteen to fifty years for the aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the cumulative sentences Defendant received upon conviction of the offenses of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not offend principles of double jeopardy; and (2) the statutes under which Defendant was convicted were not unconstitutionally vague, either on their face or as applied to the facts of Defendant’s case. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

After a four-day jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of first degree sexual assault, battery, and unlawful contact without bodily injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to a nurse during a sexual assault examination in an alleged violation of Defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona; and (2) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. View "Tate v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to two life sentences according to law for crimes he committed in the 1990s. In 2015, Defendant filed a complaint against the Wyoming Board of Parole and the Wyoming Department of Corrections pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging various constitutional violations. The district court dismissed Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-16-2016(a)(i) does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because there is a legitimate state interest in treating prisoners differently with respect to the statute; (2) the Wyoming Department of Corrections’ good time policy does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because prisoners serving life according to law and prisoners serving a term of years sentence are not similarly situated; (3) the enactment of section 7-16-205(a)(i) did not impliedly repeal Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-402(a); (4) the Wyoming Board of Parole did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers by enacting policies governing the commutation application procedure; (5) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the amendment to the commutation application procedure; and (6) the Wyoming Board of Parole’s amendment to the commutation application procedure did not violate Defendant’s constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. View "Bird v. Wyoming Board of Parole" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts of felony forgery and one count of misdemeanor theft. Defendant appealed, alleging that her prosecution was motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence during closing arguments, that the district court erred by failing to provide supplemental instructions to the jury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error in Defendant’s claim of vindictive prosecution, in Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct, or in the district court’s refusal to provide supplemental instructions to the jury; (2) Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated; and (3) Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. View "Mraz v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at Wyoming’s medium-security correctional facility in Torrington, wrote a letter to the warden asking to inspect certain public records of that institution. The institution’s employees provided him with some, but not all, of the requested documents. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for order of enforcement and request to show cause, asserting that because the institution’s employees had not timely completed their efforts to fulfill his records requests they effectively refused to comply under the law. The institution subsequently made available to Appellant the remainder of the requested records. Thereafter, the district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly confined the scope of its review to that permitted by the Wyoming Public Records Act, (2) properly found that Appellees fully complied with Appellant’s records request, and (3) properly received information regarding the warden’s initial response to that request. Further, there was no preemption of the WPRA. View "Guy v. Lampert" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and obstruction of a peace officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the traffic stop and investigatory detention of Defendant were reasonable. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to all three charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, as the information available to the officer at the time he made the traffic stop could give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "Jennings v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing small amounts of morphine and methamphetamine. The offenses were felonies due to Defendant’s prior controlled substance convictions. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of two to five years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of Defendant’s backpack; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (3) the district court properly rejected Defendant’s request for an additional instruction on constructive possession. View "Lemley v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor breach of peace and misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. Two days later, the State filed an information charging Defendant with felony interference with a peace officer arising out of the same events as those underlying his misdemeanors convictions. Defendant entered an unconditional plea of no contest to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference. Defendant appealed, arguing that his second misdemeanor conviction violated his double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not waive his double jeopardy claim; and (2) because Defendant committed two separate acts of interference, one inside his home and one outside his home, Defendant could lawfully be prosecuted for each separate offense. View "Redding v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by incorrectly instructing the jury regarding the presumption of innocence and by attempting to define “reasonable doubt” to the jury in his closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when he made an incorrect statement regarding the presumption of innocence; (2) the prosecutor transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law when he defined reasonable doubt for the jury in his closing argument; but (3) while Defendant established that the prosecutor committed two errors that transgressed clear and unequivocal rules of law, the cumulative effect of these errors was not prejudicial. View "Watts v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of five counts of reckless endangering, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of eluding police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict Defendant of aggravated assault; (2) the district court erred in admitting evidence of law enforcement officers’ subjective reactions to a fired shot, but the error was not prejudicial; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for mistrial based upon prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument did not constitute plain error. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law