Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee was sexually assaulted by a county detention officer while she was an inmate at the county detention center. Appellee filed claims under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act against the officer, the county sheriff, and the county board of commissioners for damages stemming from this assault. The sheriff, county, and county commissioners were the Appellants in these proceedings. The trial court denied the sheriff's and the county's motions for summary judgment on the claims against the sheriff for negligent supervision and training and on the sheriff's motion for qualified immunity and also denied the county's and board's motions as to statutorily imposed liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record did not support the trial court's ruling that the sheriff was not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity; and (2) based on the holding that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity, the ruling against the county and the board must also be reversed. View "Uinta County v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. In this appeal, Appellant raised eight issues where he claimed there was an error in his trial. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court's decision finding the victim was competent to testify was clearly erroneous, as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the victim understood the obligation to tell the truth while testifying, and the error was not harmless; (2) the admission of evidence that Appellant visited several pornographic websites on the Internet and admission of photos of the victim and his brother engaging in innocent activities in the nude, pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b), was prejudicial error; (3) the district court's statement to the jury that they would hear about child pornography websites constituted plain error; and (4) plain error occurred when the interviewer expressed his opinion that Appellant was lying during the interview. View "Mersereau v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to six counts of second-degree sexual assault in 2000 and was sentenced to six consecutive life terms. In this appeal, Appellant, acting pro se, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Appellant's claims of illegal sentence were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Appellant's claims that his sentence was illegal due to alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report and that the sentencing court erred in denying correction of factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report were barred by res judicata. View "Deloge v. State" on Justia Law

Ricky D. Miller challenged a hearing examiner's order upholding his per se driver's license suspension. In his only issue, Miller argued that his breath test was invalid because Corporal Karr's (the test administrator) operator permit for the test equipment was not valid. Miller argued that the evidence established, and the OAH found, that Corporal Karr did not properly maintain her certification and should have been decertified. Considering the applicable statues and Wyoming's relevant case law under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that under the DOH's Rules and Regulations for Chemical Analysis for Alcohol Testing, Chapter IV, Section 4, the operator's permit in this case was valid because the state agency had not deemed otherwise and had not notified the permittee. "Certainly, there is tension between the quoted rule and the DOH rule . . . However, we conclude that section 4 is controlling, as suggested by this Court in Miller's earlier appeal." The hearing examiner's decision was affirmed, and Miller's per se driver's license suspension stood. View "Miller v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Appellant Billie Colleen Johnson was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine. On appeal, she claimed that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Confidential Informant (CI) to testify, although Appellant was not given the CI’s telephone number. She also argued that the district court violated her constitutional rights when it considered the appellant’s failure to take responsibility for her criminal activity at sentencing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant Steve Edward Dobbins pled no contest to one count of sexual assault in the first degree. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant contended that the district court should have permitted him to withdraw his plea, both before and after sentencing. Specifically, he complained that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest prior to being sentenced because he did not have close assistance of counsel and that he had a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. Furthermore, Defendant argued that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest after sentencing because the district court failed to properly advise him as required by W.R.Cr.P. 11, resulting in manifest injustice. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of both of Defendant's motions to withdraw his no contest plea, and affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "Dobbins v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Gary Carter was tried and convicted by a jury of a single felony charge of possessing, with intent to deliver, two grams of methamphetamine. The court sentenced Defendant to twelve to fifteen years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. On appeal, Defendant contended that plain error occurred when the prosecutor elicited expert witness testimony that Defendant was guilty of being a drug dealer. Furthermore, Defendant alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct when arguing facts not in evidence during closing argument. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that when considered in conjunction with the expert witness testimony, the "troublesome comments" made during closing presented a reasonable probability that Defendant's right to a fair trial was affected: "[t]he information, while subtle, came directly from the prosecutor and did more than insinuate." The Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "Carter v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Donald Inman appealed his aggravated assault and battery conviction. Defendant did not deny that he assaulted the victim, but claimed he acted in defense of himself and his family. On appeal, Defendant asserted the district court erred in allowing a detective to provide lay opinion testimony as to the location of the assault. He also asserted the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the victim’s testimony was contradictory and so inherently unreliable that a reasonable juror could not have accepted the victim’s version of events and rejected Inman’s claim of self defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the opinion testimony, and it properly denied Defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. View "Inman v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Appellant Connie Powell worked as a bookkeeper for Rocky Mountain Pump Services (RMPS) from March 2005 to February 2007, when her employment was terminated. After terminating appellant's employment, RMPS contracted with Melanie Field to handle the company's books until another bookkeeper could be hired. Field immediately found the books to be incomplete, inaccurate, and in need of "rebuilding." Reconstruction of the books back to the time when Appellant was hired, revealed numerous discrepancies and missing records, with multiple paychecks to Appellant for the same pay period, copies of checks made payable to the appellant where the computer QuickBooks system showed those checks being paid to vendors, and a few checks made payable to Appellant where the issuing manager's signature appeared to be forged. The examination of the books was followed by a law enforcement investigation that included a review of Appellant's personal bank account records. Eventually, it was determined that 93 checks, totaling $78,200, and claimed to be "unauthorized" by RMPS, had been deposited into Appellant's personal account during her tenure as RMPS's bookkeeper. Appellant was arrested and charged with one count of felony larceny. A jury found her guilty. She appealed her conviction. Because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed larceny, the Supreme Court reversed her conviction. View "Powell v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

A jury found Julie Ann Jacobsen guilty of ten felony counts involving forgery and larceny. She appealed the convictions, claiming her trial counsel was ineffective. She also asks this Court to allow her to supplement the trial record in order to prove her ineffective assistance claim. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court declined Ms. Jacobsen’s request to supplement the record and affirmed her convictions. View "Jacobsen v. Wyoming" on Justia Law