Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Appellant, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support three statutory grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The Supreme Court then entered an order granting Appellant a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. The Court subsequently granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Appellant. View "ANOL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father had one child, TM, during their marriage. When the parties divorced, the custody order awarded Mother primary physical custody of TM. When Father learned that Mother was planning to marry and move with TM to live with her new husband in Texas, Father filed an amended petition to modify requesting primary physical custody of TM. After a trial, the district court found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was in TM’s best interest for Father to be awarded primary physical custody. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change of circumstances warranting the reopening of the original custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude that the considerable increase in the geographical distance between the parties created a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of TM. View "Cook v. Moore" on Justia Law

This proceeding was the third and final phase of the general adjudication of water rights in the Big Horn River. The State recommended adjudicating water rights for fifty-two acres of land owned by Hat Bar Cattle Company. Neighboring landowner Betty Whitt objected to the recommendation. After a contested case hearing, the Special Master recommended adjudicating the right to irrigate the fifty-two acres at issue. The district court adopted the Special Master’s report and recommendation and adjudicated Hat Bar’s rights. Whitt appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Special Master correctly applied the burden of proof and that the finding regarding beneficial use of the water were not clearly erroneous. View "Whitt v. Hat Bar Cattle Co." on Justia Law

After twenty years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce from Husband. The primary issue at trial concerned the division of the marital property. After the district court entered a divorce decree, Wife appealed, arguing that the court erred when it declined to require Husband to pay interest on the amount it ordered him to pay to equalize the division of marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion when it suspended payment of interest as long as Husband makes annual payments of at least $15,000 toward the property allocation. View "Sinclair v. Sinclair" 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

In 2012, the Fremont County Assessor assessed the commercial land and improvements of Mountain Vista Retirement Residence at $1,327,908 and its personal property at $8,246. The Fremont County Board of Equalization, the State Board of Equalization, and the district court upheld the valuation. Mountain Vista appealed, arguing that it should be exempt from property tax because it is a charitable or benevolent association that uses its property for primarily non-commercial purposes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mountain Vista is neither a charitable or benevolent association and that its property is primarily used for commercial purposes. View "Mountain Vista Ret. Residence v. Fremont County Assessor" on Justia Law