Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Enroe Jealous was convicted of aggravated assault and battery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three to eight years. Jealous appealed, contending that the district court committed reversible error when it failed to properly instruct the jury on the elements of the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury was not misled or confused as to the elements of the crime; (2) the district court did not plainly err by failing to define the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," and "recklessly"; and (3) it was not plain error for he district court to instruct the jury that it could base its verdict on any and all proven theories of guilt. View "Jealous v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Gloria Landeroz (1) guilty of aggravated assault and battery and (2) not guilty of attempted first degree murder and the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter. The State subsequently moved for dismissal of the attempted first degree murder charge without prejudice. The district court granted the motion. Landeroz appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the district court erred in dismissing the charge because in doing so it exposed her to double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict but remanded for an entry of an order clarifying that the dismissal of the attempted first degree murder charge was "with prejudice" as to that offense, but "without prejudice" as to the lesser included offense of attempted manslaughter, holding (1) to the extent the dismissal without prejudice suggested Landeroz could be re-prosecuted for attempted first or second degree murder, the order violated the double jeopardy clause; and (2) Landeroz did not meet her burden of providing a Brady violation occurred, depriving her of due process. View "Landeroz v. State" on Justia Law

Brodey Burnett was convicted of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of attempted second degree murder; (2) the jury instructions regarding aggravated assault and battery causing serious bodily injury were not in error and caused no prejudice to Burnett; and (3) the fact that the statutory provisions defining the crimes of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault and battery were overlapping did not deprive Burnett of his due process rights because the elements of the two crimes were not identical. View "Burnett v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Varo Ken of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on Ken's claim that counsel was ineffective. On remand, the district court concluded that Ken was prejudiced by counsel's failure to timely file a motion for a new trial because, had counsel timely filed the motion, the court would have granted it on the ground that the attempted first degree murder conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence and may have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. After the case returned to the Supreme Court for consideration of the issues Ken presented in his appeal, the Court (1) held that Ken satisfied his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) reversed the attempted murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on that charge. View "Ken v. State" on Justia Law

Excel Construction entered into a contract with the Town of Lovell to replace the Town's water and sewer system mains and service connections. Excel subsequently filed a complaint against the Town of breach of contract and related claims. The district court dismissed Excel's claims for failure to submit a governmental notice of claim that met the itemization requirements of the Wyoming Constitution and Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Excel's notice of claim met the itemization requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-39-113(b)(iii) and Wyo. Const. art. XVI, 7; (2) Excel complied with the service requirements of Wyo. Const. art. XVI, 7 when it served its notice of claim on the mayor, town administrator, town attorney, and town project engineer; and (3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider Excel's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Remanded. View "Excel Constr., Inc. v. Town of Lovell" on Justia Law

Appellant's co-defendant was charged with one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant was charged with a similar conspiracy count and with being an accessory before the fact to one of the controlled substance deliveries. Appellant was acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of the accessory charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in joining Appellant's case with that of her co-defendent; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness, in admonishing the co-defendant's counsel in that regard, and in giving the jury a curative instruction; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Earley v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeramie Large was charged with six crimes arising from an incident when he stole and crashed a vehicle. Large appealed, claiming (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated and (2) he was denied his right to counsel without being adequately instructed and warned of the dangers of proceeding without counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was afforded a speedy trial as it occurred without the 180-day time period required by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48, and any delays did not violate Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; and (2) Appellant's right to counsel was not violated as the district court adequately instructed Appellant on the dangers of proceeding without counsel. View "Large v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Danny Rodgers was convicted of check fraud, driving while intoxicated, felony identity theft, and two counts of forgery. Rodgers appealed, raising, among other claims, claims of evidentiary insufficiency and a speedy trial violation. The Supreme Court (1) reversed Rodgers' check fraud conviction, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Wyoming law; (2) reversed Rodgers' felony identity theft conviction because the facts did not support the felony conviction as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-901(c), and ordered entry of a misdemeanor identity theft conviction because the jury's verdict supported Rodgers' conviction for that lesser-included offense; and (3) held that Rodgers' right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) was not violated under the facts of this case. Remanded for resentencing on the conviction of misdemeanor identity theft. View "Rodgers v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Mark Garner was convicted on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance after he was arrested for selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in two controlled buy operations initiated by the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. Garner appealed, contending (1) the district court improperly limited cross-examination of the confidential informant, a key prosecution witness; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admonishing defense counsel, limiting his cross-examination, and issuing a limiting instruction to the jury when defense counsel was cross-examining the confidential informant; and (2) there was ample evidence to support Appellant's convictions. View "Garner v. State" on Justia Law

Marvin Tilley was convicted of six counts of sexual assault committed years previously against four different victims and one count of aggravated burglary against one of the victims. Tilley appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. At issue on appeal was the credibility of the witnesses and their memories. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient as to the date of the assaults and the fact that the victims did not consent to the sexual acts, (2) there was no basis to question the credibility determinations of the jury, and (3) therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Tilley's convictions. View "Tilley v. State" on Justia Law