Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's multiple motions to suppress challenging the validity of the warrant and supporting affidavit police obtained to search his residence.On appeal, Defendant argued that Officer Andy Lucas of the Gillette Police Department knowingly, or with reckless disregard, omitted facts from the search warrant affidavit and that the warrant was not sufficiently particular to remain valid under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in finding Officer Lucas had not recklessly omitted information from the affidavit; and (2) the search warrant contained sufficient information to allow Officer Lucas to identify the place to be searched with reasonable effort. View "Herdt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after law enforcement forced open a lacked box during an inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, holding that the district court did not err.During an inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, the police forced open a locked box and discovered suspected illegal drugs. The State charged Defendant with felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of heroin. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the box, arguing that opening the box exceeded the scope of a permissible inventory search in violation of the Wyoming Highway Patrol's (WHP) inventory policy, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, after which Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument that the inventory search violated WHP policy was unavailing. View "Beckwith v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that the district court abused its discretion by relying upon the State's misrepresentation of Defendant's criminal history when denying his motion.Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to felony domestic battery and was sentenced to three to six years in prison. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Defendant failed to show that the district court actually relied upon the State's misrepresentation of his criminal history when denying his motion for sentence reduction, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. View "Bulisco v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting his niece, DT. On appeal, Defendant argued that DT's testimony during trial lacked credibility and could not support his conviction and that, alternatively, the State was only able to establish the first element of the offense through leading questions. The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's arguments and affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "Deephouse v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's petition for relief from the requirement that Defendant register as a sex offender in Wyoming pursuant to the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act, holding that the district court's rulings concerning Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation's (DCI) authority under the Act were erroneous.In 1999, Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery in Georgia. In 2019, a federal agency informed DCI that that it had intercepted a firearm suppressor addressed to Defendant, who was living in Casper, Wyoming. After discovering his Georgia conviction, DCI directed Defendant to register as a sex offender in the state. Defendant filed a petition seeking relief from the requirement. The district court granted DCI summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the Act's requirement to register as a sex offender is premised on a conviction, DCI may not rely on dismissed charges to determine an individual's registration requirements; and (2) DCI may not require someone to register before it knows that he was convicted of a registrable offense. View "Minter v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of immodest, immoral, and indecent liberties with a minor, third-degree sexual assault, and first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his four allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of third-degree sexual assault; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the error; (3) the prosecutor made a statement during the State's closing argument regarding the victim's veracity, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the error; and (4) there was no reasonable possibility that cumulative effect of the errors at trial deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for misdemeanor interference with a peace officer stemming from his act of resisting when police officers entered his home without a warrant to arrest him for a misdemeanor crime, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant's conviction could not stand.On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers' warrantless entry into his home was unlawful, and therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the officers in this case were not "engaged in the lawful performance" of their official duties when they entered Defendant's home without a warrant, as required to convict him under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-5-204(a); and (2) because the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's home was per se unreasonable, the warrantless entry into Defendant's home to execute a warrantless arrest violated Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment. View "Woods v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of stalking his ex-wife, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in instructing the jury.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony stalking and sentenced to four to six years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under either Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by giving instruction number fourteen because it described stalking as a general intent crime when it, in fact, is a specific intent crime, but Appellant did not meet his burden to demonstrate prejudice. View "Person v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for two counts of forgery, holding that the district court plainly erred in accepting Defendant's guilty plea because it lacked a factual basis.Defendant was charged with two felony counts of forgery, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-602(a)(ii). Defendant pled guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court found the plea voluntary, accepted the factual basis, and sentenced Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it accepted Defendant’s guilty plea without having a sufficient factual basis to conclude that she committed forgery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-602(a)(ii); and (2) Defendant suffered material prejudice when the district court sentenced her to a crime that the record did not reflect she committed. View "Delarosa v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of committing aggravated child abuse against his son, KH, and child abuse against his stepson, LT, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting LT's out of court statement as a prior consistent statement under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B).On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by admitting LT's prior recorded interview statement because it constituted inadmissible hearsay and that three of the four requirements for admission of such a statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) were not satisfied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude that all four requirements were satisfied and thus did not abuse its discretion in admitting LT's out of court statement. View "Hilyard v. State" on Justia Law