Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Johanna Hicks died from an accidental overdose of her medications. Hicks’ estate filed suit against the doctor who treated Hicks for severe chronic pain for negligently causing Hicks’ death and filed suit against the doctor’s employer, claiming it should be held vicariously liable for the doctor’s negligence. A jury found that the doctor was not negligent in his treatment of Johanna and returned a defense verdict. On appeal, the estate argued that the district court erred by permitting the doctor and his codefendant to introduce the testimony of two expert witnesses on the doctor’s adherence to the appropriate standard of care for practitioners of pain medicine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the estate failed to preserve for appellate review the issue regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the two standard of care experts.View "Hicks v. Zondag" on Justia Law

Two years after Cindy Hill, the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State, the Wyoming Legislature passed Senate Enrolled Act 0001 (Act), which removed the Superintendent as the administrator and chief executive officer of the Department of Education (Department), created the new position of Director of the Department, and assigned to the Director nearly all the duties that were formerly the responsibility of the Superintendent. On the day the Act was signed into law, Hill and two Wyoming citizens (collectively, Appellants) filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act was unconstitutional. The district court for the First Judicial District of Wyoming certified questions of law to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the Act unconstitutionally deprives the Superintendent of the power of “general supervision of the public schools” entrusted to the Superintendent in Wyo. Const. art. XII, 14 by impermissibly transferring the power to the Director. View "Powers v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced several years ago, and Father was awarded primary custody of the parties’ minor child. Mother was ordered to pay child support of $272 per month. Mother recently filed a petition to modify custody and child support. The proper amount of Mother’s child support payments was tried to the district court, which modified the child support obligation of Mother to $419 per month. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court improperly determined Father’s income, which caused the court to miscalculate her child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in computing Father’s monthly net income as it did for child support purposes. View "Ackerman v. Ott" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to overrule Defendant’s objection to the court’s admission of certain testimony, as the evidence was not, as Defendant alleged, uncharged misconduct in violation of Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; and (3) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury in accordance with the Court’s decision in Eagan v. State.View "Gonzalez-Ochoa v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part a pretrial discovery request made by Appellant; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case; and (3) Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test.View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Evelyn Carlsen, a settlor of the 1999 Carlsen Family Living Trust who also served as trustee, amended the trust on two separate occasions before she died. After Mrs. Carlsen’s death, Appellant Catherine Meyer, a beneficiary of the trust who stood to receive less because of the amendments, brought an action against Appellee, the successor trustee, challenging the validity of the amendments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the amendments were valid because their terms did not constitute a repayment of a debt, which might invoke the Statute of Frauds; and (2) properly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact with regard to Appellant’s claim that Mrs. Carlsen was unduly influenced to amend the trust by other beneficiaries. View "Meyer v. Miller " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted for possession, delivery, and conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant challenged the admission of photographic evidence of items in his home containing methamphetamine, arguing that the evidence constituted evidence of uncharged misconduct under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) because it suggested that Appellant was manufacturing methamphetamine. The State responded that the evidence was substantive evidence of the crimes charged and was thus not uncharged misconduct evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence because it was intrinsic to the crimes charged and was not uncharged misconduct evidence. View "Hernandez v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered Alford pleas to promoting prostitution, conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman. The victim in this case was Defendant’s girlfriend. The district court imposed suspended sentences of incarceration and ten years probation to run consecutively with a term of imprisonment for the conspiracy charge. One of the conditions of Defendant’s probation was that Defendant have no contact with the victim of the offense or the minor children of the victim and Defendant. Defendant appealed, arguing that the “no contact” condition of his probation was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and was an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “no contact” condition of probation in Defendant’s sentencing. View "Perkins v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, acting as the personal representative for her deceased mother’s estate, sued Star Valley Medical and Care Centers and several of their employees (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees’ negligence caused her mother’s death. Before filing her complaint, Appellant submitted a governmental claim as required by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Appellant’s claim was defective because it was not signed under oath or penalty of perjury as required by the current WGCA and the Wyoming Constitutions. The district court found that, for these reasons, the claim was invalid and granted summary judgment to Appellees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the claim requirements set forth in the WGCA and Wyoming Constitution are nonjurisdictional substantive requirements that can be waived; and (2) although the claim in this case did not meet statutory and constitutional requirements, Appellees failed to adequately raise the claim’s deficiencies as an affirmative defense and therefore waived that defense. View "Harmon v. Star Valley Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After an investigation, police learned that Defendant, a band teacher, had sexual relations with three students at Rock Springs High School. The State charged Defendant with a total of fifteen counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Pursuant to a plea deal, Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. At the sentencing hearing, several students, including two of the victims, testified on Defendant’s behalf. The district court sentenced Defendant to a fifteen to twenty-five-year sentence for one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on the other counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Defendant and in considering statements made by the victims as aggravating rather than mitigating; and (2) did not violate Defendant’s due process rights when it recessed his sentencing hearing and continued it to the next day. View "Thompson v. State" on Justia Law