Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed both convictions and requested remand for a hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective because they failed to call expert witnesses to substantiate his claim of self-defense. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's request. On remand, the district court concluded that Defendant's trial counsel performed deficiently but that Defendant was not prejudiced by the deficient performance. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecution engaged in misconduct, and, given the numerous errors on the part of the prosecution, both of Defendant's convictions were tainted. Remanded for retrial. View "Drennen v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with three crimes for his sexually-charged attack on his sister-in-law. The morning trial was to begin, the district court allowed the State to amend to Information to clarify that one of the charges was for aggravated burglary, not simply burglary. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary, battery, and third-degree sexual assault. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by permitting amendment of the aggravated burglary charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or deprive Appellant of his due process rights by granting the State's motion to amend the Information before trial began. View "Albarran v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court erred by refusing to order one of his co-conspirators to submit handwriting exemplars so that Defendant's expert witness could analyze whether the co-conspirator was the author of certain notes sent in jail. The district court concluded that there was no legal authority to require a non-party to appear before trial to provide handwriting exemplars. The Supreme Court disagreed with the district court but affirmed, holding (1) the subpoena procedure may be used to order a witness to provide handwriting exemplars; but (2) any error regarding Defendant's right to obtain handwriting exemplars from his co-conspirator was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "West v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with first degree sexual assault. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of third degree sexual assault. Appellant appealed, arguing that the jury should not have been instructed on third degree sexual assault because that offense was not charged and was not a lesser included offense of first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's conviction for third degree sexual assault, holding that third degree sexual assault is not a lesser included offense of first degree sexual assault, and the jury in this case should not have been so instructed. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to one felony count of aggravated assault and battery and one count of misdemeanor battery. Appellant appealed, claiming that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because he was not properly advised. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the district court erred in failing to advise him at arraignment of the potential loss of firearm rights and any impact that loss might have on employment in occupations that require the use of a firearm, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507. The State argued that firearms advisements not be required for Defendants with prior convictions that disqualify them from possessing firearms under federal law. The Supreme Court set Appellant's conviction aside, holding that the district court erred in failing to advise Appellant of the potential loss of his firearms rights under federal law, as section 7-11-507 applies to all defendants facing a charge that may, under federal law, result in loss of firearms rights and employment requiring possession of a firearm. View "Balderson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of obtaining property by false pretenses and one count of wrongful disposing of that property. Appellant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Appellant contended, among other things, that the two criminal counts should have merged for purposes of sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the "same elements" test shall henceforth serve as the sole test for evaluating sentencing merger questions, and the "same facts or evidence test" is overruled; (2) sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to merge sentences. View "Sweets v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled no contest to one count of felony property destruction pursuant to a plea agreement. In accordance with the plea agreement, Appellant received first offender treatment and was placed on supervised probation for five years. Appellant appealed, challenging the district court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal where (1) Appellant's brief failed to present any valid contentions supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority; and (2) to the extent the Court was able to guess at the nature of Appellant's claims, they were waived by Appellant's no contest plea to the charge against him. View "Serna v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to continue his jury trial to allow newly retained counsel additional time to prepare for trial and that the jury's special verdict findings contained inconsistencies that required a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to continue his jury trial; and (2) there was no plain error in alleged inconsistencies in the jury's special verdict findings form. View "Secrest v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Appellant appealed, raising four separate allegations of error, including the allegation that the district court erred when it reversed itself on a prior ruling and admitted uncharged misconduct evidence. The Supreme Court reversed on that single issue, holding that the district court abused its discretion when, under the circumstances of this case, it reversed its prior ruling after the State had rested and admitted certain uncharged misconduct evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), as the record did not show good reason existed for the reversal and the evidence was clearly prejudicial. View "Munoz v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree. Defendant appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner to testify as to statements made by the victim during the physical examination of her. Specifically, Defendant contended that the district court did not properly apply the exception and foundational requirements of Wyo. R. Evid. 803(4), which allows a hearsay exception for statements for purposes of medical diangosis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that statements made by the victim during her sexual assault examination were admissible under Rule 803(4). View "McLaury v. State" on Justia Law