Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1993, Appellant pled guilty to a second degree sexual assault crime in New Jersey. Appellant later moved to Wyoming. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with failing to register in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-19-302(j) and 7-19-307(a)(d). After a trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge. Appellant appealed, contending that Wyoming’s Sex Offender Registration Act violates the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in the state and federal Constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Act does not violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution because the Act imposes only a regulatory burden on convicted sex offenders; and (2) there was no merit in Appellant’s claim that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection against ex post facto laws than its federal counterpart.View "Kammerer v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of at least 0.08% for a fourth or subsequent time in ten years, a felony. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his BAC test, claiming that the affidavit supporting the search warrant authorizing his blood to be taken for testing was deficient because it failed to demonstrate probable cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search warrant affidavit did not provide sufficient information for a judicial officer to make an independent judgment that there was probable cause to issue the warrant, and therefore, the BAC test - the fruit of the search - should have been suppressed. View "Snell v. State" on Justia Law

The Wyoming Department of Revenue (Department) directed Appellants, on-line travel companies (OTCs), to collect and remit taxes on the total amounts they collected from customers booking hotel rooms in Wyoming. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) upheld the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the SBOE did not err in finding that the full amount paid by a customer to the OTCs for a reservation of a hotel room in Wyoming was taxable to the Department; (2) the Department’s imposition of sales tax on the full amount collected by the OTCs did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to the OTCs; and (3) the imposition of the sales tax did not violate the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.View "Travelocity.com LP v. Wyo. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Defendant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes. After imposing an initial sentence, the district court resentenced Defendant to life in prison with the possibility of parole after serving for twenty-five years on the felony murder charge, to run consecutive to the previously imposed sentence for aggravated burglary of twenty to twenty-five years, and concurrent to the sentence for conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to resentence on all counts, holding that sentencing courts are required to provide an individualized sentencing hearing to weigh the factors for determining a juvenile’s diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform when, as in this case, the aggregate sentences result the functional equivalent of life without parole. Remanded for resentencing. View "Bear Cloud v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s right to confrontation by allegedly limiting the cross-examination of the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister because the district court did not make a ruling on the issue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by not granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict.View "Swan v. State" on Justia Law

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