Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to call an expert witness. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) Appellant did not receive constitutionally effective counsel, and, under the circumstances, a reasonable probability existed that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome would have been different; and (3) the jury was improperly instructed on self defense.View "Cooper v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated battery stemming from an altercation with his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s sister. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to establish that the victim suffered serious bodily injury, and therefore, the jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted; (2) the district court did not commit plain error when it instructed the jury on the theory of self-defense; and (3) the prosecutor’s statements throughout trial were clearly improper, but Appellant was not materially prejudiced as a result of the prosecutor’s misconduct. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

A defendant was charged with sexual assault of a minor in connection with an AMBER Alert and a missing child. The deputy county attorney requested that the circuit court restrict disclosure of information of the case in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-319(a). The circuit court granted the request and sealed the court file and barred news organizations (Appellees) from attending any court proceedings. Appellees moved to intervene to gain access to information pertaining to the case, but the defendant was bound over to the district court before the circuit court ruled on the motion. Appellees filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court seeking a ruling on whether section 6-2-319(a) required the closure of records and proceedings in cases alleging sexual assault. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) violated the First Amendment when it closed the court proceedings and sealed the court records; and (2) incorrectly interpreted section 6-2-319(a) when it determined that the statute required the court to seal the criminal case file and close all proceedings held in its courtroom without a hearing or findings on the record. View "Circuit Court v. Lee Newspapers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a resident alien who was living in the United States legally, pled guilty to the charge of strangulation of a household member. Before Defendant was sentenced, he learned that his guilty plea would result in his deportation. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw the plea, arguing that his counsel’s performance was deficient. The district court determined that Defendant had succeeded in demonstrating that his counsel’s performance was deficient, but nonetheless denied Defendant’s request to withdraw his plea, concluding that Defendant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him of the possibility of deportation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, because of the exceptional circumstances of Defendant’s counsel’s failure to advise Defendant of his assured deportation, Defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance, and, therefore, there was a fair and just reason to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Ortega-Araiza v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. During trial, Defendant called a witness who opined about Defendant’s good character when interacting with children. On cross-examination, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to ask the witness if she knew Defendant had two prior convictions for sexually assaulting children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant opened the door to character evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) and Wyo. R. Evid. 405(a), and the State’s presentation of rebuttal character evidence did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense.View "McDowell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part a pretrial discovery request made by Appellant; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case; and (3) Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test.View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered Alford pleas to promoting prostitution, conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman. The victim in this case was Defendant’s girlfriend. The district court imposed suspended sentences of incarceration and ten years probation to run consecutively with a term of imprisonment for the conspiracy charge. One of the conditions of Defendant’s probation was that Defendant have no contact with the victim of the offense or the minor children of the victim and Defendant. Defendant appealed, arguing that the “no contact” condition of his probation was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and was an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “no contact” condition of probation in Defendant’s sentencing. View "Perkins v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWUI). This was Defendant’s fourth such offense within the previous ten years, making it a felony under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(e) and subject to a sentence enhancement. Defendant filed a motion to strike two of four prior convictions, claiming that the two prior DWUI convictions were not constitutionally obtained and therefore should not have been relied upon for sentence enhancement purposes. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, ruling that because Defendant had not appealed from his earlier convictions the convictions could not be overturned. The court then enhanced Defendant’s conviction to a felony and sentenced Defendant accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s enhanced sentence, holding that Defendant’s underlying convictions were constitutionally obtained. View "Derrera v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of solicitation to commit property destruction. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he was in West Virginia at the time of the alleged solicitation, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State had subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant for charges specified in the charging Information, as Defendant intended his criminal actions to have an effect in Wyoming; and (2) Appellant failed to carry his burden of showing that his representation by trial counsel was so ineffective that it rendered Appellant’s guilty plea involuntary. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional Alford plea to possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence, arguing that she should have been permitted to leave the scene of a traffic stop when she asked to leave, that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain her, and that she should have been read her Miranda rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) law enforcement had reasonable, articulable suspicion on which to detain Defendant; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, Defendant was not entitled to receive Miranda rights. View "Engdahl v. State" on Justia Law