Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences imposed in connection with Defendant’s convictions of one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, holding that the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a continuance did not deprive her of the opportunity to obtain and present evidence in mitigation of her sentence.After Defendant pleaded guilty of the offenses, she sought and obtained a continuance of the sentencing hearing. Defendant sought a second continuance shortly before the rescheduled hearing. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion under the circumstances of this case. View "Steinfeldt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault and attempted second-degree murder for stabbing her uncle, holding that the district court erred in declining to give the defense’s proposed instruction regarding the duty to retreat in one’s residence.Based upon its conclusion that Defendant was not a resident of her uncle’s home, the district court declined to give Defendant’s proposed castle doctrine instruction to the jury. The Supreme Court held that the district court improperly resolved the disputed factual question of whether Defendant was a resident of her uncle’s home because the question of Defendant’s residence was a factual one. Therefore, the question should have been submitted to the jury. If the jury determined the home to be Defendant’s residence, the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the castle doctrine. Further, the district court erred when it gave an incorrect malice definition and abused its discretion when it prohibited testimony of specific instances of conduct relating to the victim’s character for violence. View "Widdison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder, entered after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in several ways instructing the jury and that the court utilized an improper stepped verdict form. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) any error or confusion that may have existed in the jury instructions regarding the law of self defense could not have prejudiced Defendant; (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate plain error in the district court’s jury instructions regarding the State’s burden of proof regarding a “sudden heat of passion” in voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no plain error in the verdict form the district court submitted to the jury; and (4) the district court did not commit plain error when it did not provide the jury a definition of “recklessly” or “enhanced recklessness” within the instruction defining malice in second-degree murder. View "Johns v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a), holding (1) res judicata did not bar Defendant’s Rule 35(a) double jeopardy claim; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendant’s actual innocence and constructive denial of counsel claims on the basis that such claims are not cognizable under Rule 35(a).Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of third degree sexual assault and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not show good cause for failing to raise his double jeopardy claim in earlier proceedings, his claim was barred by res judicata; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims were not cognizable under a Rule 35(a) motion. View "Hicks v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of three counts of second degree sexual assault of a minor and one count of first degree sexual assault of a minor. The court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting uncharged acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the rape shield statute to prohibit Defendant from cross-examining one of the victims on her status as a victim in a prior sexual abuse case. View "Moser v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a detention and subsequent search of his vehicle.Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Defendant moved to suppress evidence based on the roadside search of his car, arguing that the initial traffic stop was not justified by reasonable suspicion and that the subsequent detention was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant conceded that the initial stop was justified but challenged the investigative detention. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court convicting Defendant on a charge of first-degree arson. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion when, at trial, it admitted evidence of other acts, in violation of Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b). The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not commit plain error when it conducted its Rule 404(b) Gleason analysis after the disputed Rule 404(b) evidence had been admitted and after the close of the evidence; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of other acts at trial. View "Garrison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court sentencing Defendant to a prison term of four to six years, suspended in favor of six years of supervised probation, and ordering Defendant to pay restitution to her victim as a condition of her probation.Defendant pled guilty to exploitation of a vulnerable adult. In sentencing Defendant, the district court placed a number of conditions on her probations, including that Defendant pay restitution to the victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court was without authority to setting her restitution payments at $500 per month, restricting Defendant from purchasing cable television or cell phone services, and directing that her recreational vehicles and trailers be liquidated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or exceed its authority in imposing the conditions at issue in this case. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court sentencing Defendant to a prison term of four to six years, suspended in favor of six years of supervised probation, and ordering Defendant to pay restitution to her victim as a condition of her probation.Defendant pled guilty to exploitation of a vulnerable adult. In sentencing Defendant, the district court placed a number of conditions on her probations, including that Defendant pay restitution to the victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court was without authority to setting her restitution payments at $500 per month, restricting Defendant from purchasing cable television or cell phone services, and directing that her recreational vehicles and trailers be liquidated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or exceed its authority in imposing the conditions at issue in this case. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, methamphetamine, thus rejecting Defendant’s claims of error on appeal. Specifically, the court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit plain error in admitting certain testimony into evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on Fifth Amendment double jeopardy grounds; and (3) plain error did not occur when a law enforcement witness offered his opinion that Defendant committed the crime of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. View "Garriott v. State" on Justia Law