Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of four counts of first degree sexual abuse involving two minors. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by (i) rejecting Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (ii) determining that the child witnesses were competent to testify, (iii) denying Defendant’s requests for continuances, and (iv) admitting other bad acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the district court erred in allowing the admission of some hearsay testimony at trial, but the errors were harmless; and (3) Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "Griggs v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Defendant later filed a motion for sentence modification or reduction under newly discovered evidence arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court construed the motion as both a motion to withdraw Defendant’s guilty plea and to reduce Defendant’s sentence. The district court denied the request to withdraw Defendant’s guilty plea, concluding that Defendant failed to establish newly discovered evidence resulting in manifest injustice, and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a sentence reduction because Defendant’s motion was untimely. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Defendant’s motion, and therefore, this Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. View "Shue v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action in the district court asserting four federal constitutional claims and one state law claim, alleging that, while he was an inmate in the state of Wyoming under the supervision and control of the Wyoming Department of Corrections (DOC), he was deprived of his personal property, which violated his right to due process and caused him injury. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims for the DOC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the DOC. View "Chapman v. Wyo. Dep’t of Corr." on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at the Wyoming Medium Correctional Institution, filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking the district court to find that Steve Hargett, the warden of the institution, and Robert Lampert, the director of the Department Prison Division, violated the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA) by delaying the production of a record he had requested under the WPRA. Appellant also asked the district court to declare that the Department of Corrections had to produce certain types of records if he requested them in the future. After Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, Appellant filed a motion to amend his petition. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that it did not have jurisdiction under the WPRA to provide the relief Appellant was seeking. The district court did not expressly rule on the motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s petition because the relief Appellant sought was not available under the WPRA; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying the motion to amend, as the proposed amendment was futile. View "Guy v. Lampert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery and possession of a weapon with intent to threaten. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the prosecutor improperly asked him a series of questions during his testimony at trial in which the prosecutor repeated statements made by Defendant’s daughter and asked, “was she lying?”; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it allowed evidence of prior discharge of a gun. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s questioning was improper, and the error was prejudicial; and (2) the absence of appropriate findings and discussion regarding the admission of the discharge evidence hinders review of the district court’s decision to admit the evidence. Remanded. View "McGinn v. State" on Justia Law

A highway patrol trooper pulled over the driver of a vehicle for following too closely and for having a cracked windshield. Appellant was seated in the front passenger seat. After Appellant appeared to have suffered a seizure, the trooper searched the pocket of Appellant’s jacket, which Appellant had left in the car, and discovered marijuana. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence found by the trooper during his search of the jacket and the vehicle. The district court denied the motion. Thereafter, Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding (1) the initial stop of the vehicle in which Appellant was a passenger was justified because the trooper had reasonable suspicion that the driver was breaking the law; and (2) the subsequent search of Appellant’s jacket was supported by the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "Allgier v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of methamphetamine and aggravated vehicular homicide based upon recklessness. Defendant appealed, asserting that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because more than 630 days passed between his initial arrest and the case going to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, the delay was not unreasonable, i.e., it did not substantially impair Defendant’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "Durkee v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of larceny by bailee. The district court sentenced Appellant to eight to ten years in prison but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. The court also ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $127,208. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because he failed to demonstrate prejudice by his counsel’s alleged errors, Appellant could not prevail on his claim that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $127,208. View "Hibsman v. State" on Justia Law

Phillip Sam was charged as an adult with one count of first degree murder and twelve counts of aggravated assault. Sam was sixteen years old at the time of the offense, and several witnesses set to testify at trial were juveniles. After a hearing, the district court entered an order concerning media access during trial that limited the identification of juvenile witnesses who would testify during the trial in open court, concluding that this measure was necessary because some of the juvenile witnesses had been the subject of threats. Petitioner, a newspaper, challenged the prior restraint on publication imposed by the court. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the district court’s order pertaining to the release of the names of juvenile witnesses, holding that the district court’s order violated the First Amendment because this was not the sort of exceptional case where the district court’s prior restraint on speech survives constitutional scrutiny. View "Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. First Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor for sexually assaulting his teenage daughter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain uncharged misconduct at trial; (2) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by not uncovering certain evidence in time to be used at trial; and (3) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated when his appeal was delayed due to the court reporter’s untimely filing of the transcripts from the proceedings below. View "Hodge v. State" on Justia Law