Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Equalization’s decision affirming the ruling of the Wyoming Department of Revenue against PacifiCorp, Inc., which sought a ruling that its purchases of certain chemicals used in the process of generating electricity in coal-fired electrical generation facilities in Wyoming qualified for either the manufacturers’ sales tax exemption or the wholesalers’ sales tax exemption. The court held (1) The Board erred when it concluded that PacifiCorp is not a manufacturer under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-15-105(a)(iii)A); (2) the Board did not err when it held that certain chemicals necessary to treat water and sulfur dioxide emissions during the coal combustion processes that generate electricity are not “used directly” to generate electricity and are therefore not exempt from sales tax under section 39-15-105(a)(iii)(A); and (3) the Board did not err when it held that PacifiCorp’s purchases of certain chemicals and catalysts do not constitute wholesale purchases exempt from taxation under section 39-15-105(a)(iii)(F). View "PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a district court order denying Appellant’s motion for a sentence reduction. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded no contest to attempted third degree sexual assault. The district court imposed the agreed upon prison sentence of six to ten years. Appellant filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(b), asking the court to reduce the minimum term of his sentence to four years so he could enter treatment at the earliest possible opportunity. The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35(b) motion based on a finding that the motion was not timely filed. The Supreme Court rejected this claim of error, holding (1) the district court’s denial of the motion was not based on the timing of Defendant’s filing, and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for sentence reduction. View "Alford v. State" on Justia Law

Larry Hurst was killed and Sara Hurst was seriously injured while riding their bicycles after a vehicle driven by Hannah Terry struck each of their bicycles. The Hurst filed a claim with their uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (MetLife), which contended that the injuries to the Hursts were the result of one accident, resulting in a maximum of $300,000 in coverage. The Hursts, however, argued that their injuries were the result of two accidents, warranting $600,000 in coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of MetLife, concluding that there was only one accident for purposes of determining the amount of uninsured motorist coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the record was insufficient for a legal conclusion as to whether Terry maintained or regained control of her vehicle during the collisions with the Hursts, and therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted and the matter must be remanded for trial. View "Hurst v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant entered a no contest plea to kidnapping and a guilty plea to escape. The district court sentenced him to eight to ten years for escape and 17 to 20 years for kidnapping, to run consecutively. The court awarded no credit for time served. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence seeking credit for time served between his arrest and his sentencing. The district court denied the motion. Rather than appeal, Defendant filed a pleading that was treated as a petition for writ of review. The Supreme Court denied the petition because the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion was an appealable order. Defendant then filed a pro se motion seeking the same relief he sought in his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata prevented review of the issue raised by Defendant. View "Majors v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for two counts of sexual abuse and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements to the school nurse under Wyo. R. Evie. 803(4), and allowing the nurse’s testimony did not violate Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Specifically, the court held that the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him by allowing the out-of-court statements of the victim, who had previously been adjudicated to be incompetent to testify. View "Schmidt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of domestic battery and one count of strangulation of a household member for attacking his girlfriend. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated his constitutional right of confrontation when it refused testimony about the victim’s prior relationship from the sister of the victim’s former boyfriend. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not err by excluding the testimony under the rules of evidence and the court’s case law interpreting them. View "Garland v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury on the elements of the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree but that the errors did not prejudice Appellant. View "Nunamaker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the decision of the Medical Commission, which upheld the Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Division’s denial of benefits to James Boyce. Boyce suffered an inguinal hernia while working. Boyce received workers’ compensation benefits to cover that injury, but the Division denied benefits for subsequently discovered conditions in Boyce’s lumbar spine. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions below, holding that the Medical Commission did not act unreasonably or contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence in rejecting the opinion of Boyce’s medical expert and concluding that Boyce failed to prove that his work injury caused his need for subsequent spinal surgery. View "Boyce v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

Defendant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes at issue in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of one count of first-degree murder, one count of aggravated assault and battery, and ten counts of attempted aggravated assault and battery but reversed Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion to transfer the proceedings to juvenile court; (2) there were some errors in the jury instructions, but the errors were not prejudicial either individually or cumulatively; (3) the prosecutor’s victim impact statements during closing arguments were improper but not prejudicial; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the attempted assault and battery charges; (5) Defendant’s aggregate sentence did not deprive the parole board of its statutory authority to consider parole of juveniles after twenty-five years; (6) Defendant’s sentence for murder and aggravated assault of the same victim did not violate double jeopardy; but (7) Defendant’s aggregate sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because it was a de facto life without parole sentence. View "Sam v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for felonious restraint, rendered after a jury trial. The district court sentenced Defendant to incarceration for a period of not less than fifteen months nor more than forty-eight months. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on the term “bodily injury” and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the unlawful restraint exposed the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Defendant’s proposed instruction on the definition of “bodily injury”; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to establish the elements of felonious restraint. View "Hurley v. State" on Justia Law