Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was employed as a probation a parole agent when he began a sexual relationship with a probationer he supervised. The State ultimately charged Appellant with second-degree sexual assault under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-303(a)(vii). Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, asserting that the statute does not apply to probation officers or probationers. The district court denied the motion. Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to an amended charge of third-degree sexual assault under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-304, which requires sexual contact under any of the circumstances set forth in section 6-2-303. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 6-2-303 applies to persons who are employed as probation officers. View "Yager v. State" on Justia Law

A highway patrol trooper pulled over the driver of a vehicle for following too closely and for having a cracked windshield. Appellant was seated in the front passenger seat. After Appellant appeared to have suffered a seizure, the trooper searched the pocket of Appellant’s jacket, which Appellant had left in the car, and discovered marijuana. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence found by the trooper during his search of the jacket and the vehicle. The district court denied the motion. Thereafter, Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress, holding (1) the initial stop of the vehicle in which Appellant was a passenger was justified because the trooper had reasonable suspicion that the driver was breaking the law; and (2) the subsequent search of Appellant’s jacket was supported by the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "Allgier v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on objectionable testimony of a State’s witness, as the testimony was not so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on testimony of a State’s witness that introduced uncharged misconduct evidence; and (3) the prosecutor’s statement in rebuttal to defense counsel’s closing argument did not constitute plain error. View "McGill v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of methamphetamine and aggravated vehicular homicide based upon recklessness. Defendant appealed, asserting that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because more than 630 days passed between his initial arrest and the case going to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, the delay was not unreasonable, i.e., it did not substantially impair Defendant’s right to a fair trial, and therefore, Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "Durkee v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery. The only issue at trial was whether Defendant conspired with his brother to commit robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find an agreement between Defendant and his brother and on that basis to convict Defendant of conspiracy to commit robbery; and (2) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct in either its opening statement or its closing argument by stating to the jury what evidence is required to prove the element of agreement in Wyoming conspiracy law. View "Oldman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of larceny by bailee. The district court sentenced Appellant to eight to ten years in prison but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. The court also ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $127,208. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because he failed to demonstrate prejudice by his counsel’s alleged errors, Appellant could not prevail on his claim that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $127,208. View "Hibsman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The district court sentencing Defendant to a period of seven to fifteen years incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to sustain the conviction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant probation and sentenced him instead to serve time in prison; and (3) the district court did not commit plain error by considering inappropriate factors in its sentencing decision. View "Butler v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted first degree murder, aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced to a term of life on the attempted first degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the definition of malice, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the improper instruction; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy charge, as sufficient evidence was presented to sustain the conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

Phillip Sam was charged as an adult with one count of first degree murder and twelve counts of aggravated assault. Sam was sixteen years old at the time of the offense, and several witnesses set to testify at trial were juveniles. After a hearing, the district court entered an order concerning media access during trial that limited the identification of juvenile witnesses who would testify during the trial in open court, concluding that this measure was necessary because some of the juvenile witnesses had been the subject of threats. Petitioner, a newspaper, challenged the prior restraint on publication imposed by the court. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the district court’s order pertaining to the release of the names of juvenile witnesses, holding that the district court’s order violated the First Amendment because this was not the sort of exceptional case where the district court’s prior restraint on speech survives constitutional scrutiny. View "Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. First Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In 1994, Appellant pled guilty to kidnapping and and first-degree sexual assault while he was on parole for an unrelated crime. Appellant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. In 2014, Appellant, acting pro se, filed a second motion to correct illegal sentence. The district court awarded Appellant thirty-seven days of credit for presentence confinement and denied the remainder of Appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under the circumstances of this case. View "Bird v. State" on Justia Law