Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court concluding that the probationary portion of a sentence imposed by the municipal court upon Respondent was illegal. Respondent entered a no contest plea to violating Casper Municipal Code 5.08.370(A) and (B). The municipal court sentenced Respondent to, in addition to a fine, six months of unsupervised probation. The district court reversed the municipal court’s sentence, concluding that it was illegal because the Casper ordinances governing the penalty for the possession of alcohol by a minor expressly limited that penalty to a fine and did not provide for a potential penalty of incarceration. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that when no confinement is expressly authorized as a punishment for a particular offense, a sentencing court also lacks the authority to impose a period of probation upon a conviction for such an offense. View "City of Casper v. Simonson" on Justia Law

Bruce Williams submitted a public records request to the Campbell County Sheriff’s office requesting a list of the weapons or implements carried on persons of police officers involved in the killing of Niki Jo Burtsfield. After the Sheriff’s office responded, Williams made further inquiry, believing he was not provided all of the documents he requested. Thereafter, Williams filed a “petition for reasonable response” pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 16-4-202(b) and (c). The district court granted summary judgment for Scott Matheny, the Campbell County Sheriff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Sheriff had, at the time of the district court’s ruling, provided the information that Williams requested, this inquiry was moot. View "Williams v. Matheny" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in this litigation.Three sisters filed claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims in this dispute over the numerous entities their parents formed to manage their significant holdings for the benefit of their daughters. The district court sorted out the claims after a bench trial. Appellants then filed a motion to recover costs and attorney fees. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, when this case is viewed as a whole, the district court could reasonably conclude that Appellants were not prevailing parties. View "Acorn v. Moncecchi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s aggravated assault and battery conviction and reversed and remanded for acquittal on Defendant’s battery conviction, holding (1) the trial court did not commit plain error or deny Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him when it allowed the emergency medical technician and the physician who treated the victim to testify regarding several statements the victim made to them because the statements were not testimonial; and (2) Defendant’s battery conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because the jury could not have reasonably concluded that the victim suffered bodily injury when Defendant hit him. View "Villarreal v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence collected pursuant to a search warrant, concluding that the police officer’s affidavit used to obtain the search warrant established probable cause sufficient to justify the issuance of the search warrant.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Defendant argued that the affidavit was deficient, that the circuit court improperly issued the warrant, and that the search violated Defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wyo. Const. art. I, 4. The Supreme Court held that the affidavit established probable cause supporting the issuance of the search warrant. View "Fosen v. State" on Justia Law

In this divorce case, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital assets and in denying Wife’s request for post-decree alimony of $2,000 per month for ten years. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital assets and liabilities as it did because this division was not one that shocks the conscience of the court or appears to be so unfair and inequitable that “reasonable people cannot abide it”; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in deciding that alimony was unwarranted to even up the division of marital assets and liabilities. View "Porter v. Porter" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, the decree of divorce awarded legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children to Mother, with Father having rights of reasonable visitation. Approximately four months after the decree was entered, Father filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging that Mother had violated the decree by denying him in-person and telephonic visits with the children. Following a hearing, the district court held Mother in contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in finding Mother in civil contempt of court with regard to supervised visitation; and (2) in finding Mother in civil contempt of court with regard to telephonic contact. View "Kleinpeter v. Kleinpeter" on Justia Law

Appellants owned residential property in Teton County. JCFT Wyoming Real Estate, LLC owned two parcels in the same area. The Teton County planning director, at Appellants’ request, issued a formal rule interpretation concerning a development permit associated with the JCFT property. At JCFT’s request, the planning director issued a zoning compliance verification (ZCV) concerning JCFT’s smaller parcel. Appellants appealed the rule interpretation and the ZCV decision. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners dismissed the appeals, concluding that Appellants lacked standing to appeal either action. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants lacked standing to challenge the Teton County planning director’s rule interpretation and ZCV decision; and (2) neither decision was ripe for judicial review. View "Moose Hollow Holdings, LLC v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

In this probate action, the district court erred by refusing to grant Appellants’ Wyo. R. Civ. P. 40.1 motion for peremptory disqualification of the assigned judge.Appellants, the surviving children of Robert Meeker, contested Meeker’s will, which left the bulk of his estate to Appellee. Appellants filed a petition to set aside the probate of the will and also filed a motion for change of judge under the peremptory disqualification provision in rule 40.1. The judge assigned to the probate had presided over an earlier, related guardianship/conservatorship action. The district court denied the motion for peremptory disqualification as untimely and granted summary judgment to Appellee on the will contest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellants timely filed their motion to peremptorily disqualify the assigned judge when they filed it on the same day they filed their will contest, and therefore, the district court erred when it denied Appellants’ motion for peremptory disqualification; and (2) accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee was void. View "Gaston v. Wagner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one count of aggravated robbery, holding that the district court did erred in ordering Defendant to make pretrial disclosure of information requested by the State pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) because a defendant is not required to make a pretrial disclosure of such information. In addition, the district court erred in limiting cross-examination by defense counsel as a sanction for Defendant’s failure to disclose such evidence. Ultimately, however, the limitation placed on Defendant’s cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the State’s case against Defendant. View "Broussard v. State" on Justia Law