Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Bowers Oil and Gas, Inc. (BOG) entered into a Gas Purchase Contract with Kinder Morgan Operating, L.P. (Kinder Morgan), pursuant to which Kinder Morgan agreed to purchase coal bed methane gas from certain of BOG's wells. Kinder Morgan transferred its interest in the Contract, and Kinder Morgan's successor eventually terminated the Contract pursuant to a provision that allowed either party to terminate if in the terminating party's sole opinion, the sale or purchase of the gas became unprofitable or uneconomical. BOG thereafter filed suit asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following a bench trial, the district court found no contract breach or covenant breach and ruled in favor of Kinder Morgan and its successor. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found no breach of contract in the successor's removal of the pipelines connecting BOG to the gas gathering system and that the Gas Purchase Contract was properly terminated for economic cause. Furthermore, the Court found no clear error in the district court's rejection of BOG's claim for breach of the implied covenant and fair dealing. View "Bowers Oil & Gas, Inc. v. DCP Douglas, LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants James and Barbara Henry, and Appellees George and Lucille Borushko, own adjoining properties in Fremont County, Wyoming. An irrigation canal separates the properties. In 2009, a dispute developed over the boundary between their properties. The Borushkos asserted that the boundary was the centerline of the irrigation canal. The Henrys claimed that it was at the fence along the north bank of the canal. The district court reviewed the dispute and ruled in favor of the Borushkos. The Henrys appealed. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Henry v. Borushko" on Justia Law

Appellant Jerele Craig Cothren, Jr., was facing four separate sentences from three courts for unrelated crimes. The most recent sentence, and the one upon which this appeal was based, required that Appellant serve his term of incarceration concurrent with a sentence for which he was then presently incarcerated, as well as consecutive to a probationary period that had yet to begin. Because it was impossible to meet both these requirements, and because the sentence as pronounced would require the period of incarceration to be interrupted by a period of probation, the Supreme Court concluded Appellant's sentence was illegal. Appellant's case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "Cothren v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

After stopping Patrick R. Espinoza for failing to maintain a single lane of travel while driving on Interstate 80 (I-80) in Laramie, an Albany County Sheriff's deputy arrested Mr. Espinoza for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) suspended Mr. Espinoza's driver's license, and he objected. At the contested case hearing, Mr. Espinoza claimed the deputy was not justified in stopping him. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension, and the district court affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the deputy had probable cause to stop Mr. Espinoza for the traffic violation and affirmed. View "Espinoza v. Dept. of Transp." on Justia Law

PRG (Father) appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his four minor children. Father contended that the district court erred when it refused to use his proposed jury verdict form. He also claimed that the State Department of Family Services (DFS) presented insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights and challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Father's proposed verdict form. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re Termination of Parental rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, and AKO" on Justia Law

HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which set out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and accordingly affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re termination of Parental Rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, AKO, DKO, MTO, ABO, EEO, and JBO" on Justia Law

In combined appeals that arose from post-divorce proceedings, Appellant Joshua Hanson appealed a district court's order denying his petition to modify the parties' divorce decree which granted Appellee Melanie (Belveal) Hanson primary physical custody of their minor child, and to grant him primary physical custody of their child. He also appealed the court's order that ordered him pay his ex-wife's attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending his petition to modify custody. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court affirmed both orders. View "Hanson v. Belveal" on Justia Law