Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, based on allegations that he engaged in sexual acts with a 15-year-old girl. The alleged conduct included both acts of sexual intrusion and other sexually related behavior. The defendant denied any sexual contact, while the victim and another witness provided testimony about the events. Forensic evidence was inconclusive, and the defendant’s police interview was played for the jury. The jury acquitted the defendant on the two counts of second-degree sexual abuse but convicted him on the third-degree charge.The District Court of Natrona County conducted the trial and provided jury instructions that did not specifically exclude conduct that would qualify as first- or second-degree sexual abuse from the third-degree charge, nor did they specify the factual basis for the third-degree charge. Defense counsel agreed to the instructions as given and specifically requested that the instructions not exclude the conduct alleged in the other counts. After the jury returned its verdict, the defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were erroneous for not excluding first- or second-degree conduct from the third-degree charge and for failing to specify the conduct underlying the third-degree charge.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that the defendant had affirmatively waived any objection to the lack of an instruction excluding first- or second-degree conduct from the third-degree charge by requesting that such language be omitted, invoking the invited error doctrine. The court further held that the district court did not plainly err by failing to specify the factual basis for the third-degree charge in the jury instructions, as there was no clear and unequivocal rule of law requiring such specificity when only a single count was at issue. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the conviction. View "Townsend v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers stopped an individual for a traffic violation and, during the stop, discovered a small amount of cocaine and marijuana in his vehicle, along with over $23,000 in cash hidden in various locations. After his arrest, the individual admitted to law enforcement that he had purchased and distributed controlled substances and that about half of the seized money was from drug sales, with the remainder allegedly from a 401k and insurance settlement. A subsequent search of another vehicle he owned, prompted by his statements, led to the discovery of additional drugs and over $31,000 in cash. In total, $54,226 was seized. The individual was charged with and pled guilty to two counts of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.The State of Wyoming initiated a civil forfeiture action in the District Court of Carbon County, seeking to forfeit the seized currency under the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. The State alleged the money was either proceeds from drug sales or intended to facilitate further violations of the Act. After a bench trial, the district court ordered the forfeiture of the currency, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine that the money was subject to forfeiture. The individual appealed, arguing that the district court applied the wrong burden of proof and improperly considered offenses beyond those for which he was convicted.The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court erred by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the statutorily required clear and convincing evidence standard to determine whether the currency was subject to forfeiture. The court reversed the forfeiture order and remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard. The court also clarified that, in forfeiture proceedings, the district court may consider violations of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act beyond the specific offenses for which the individual was arrested or convicted. View "In the Matter of U.S. Currency Totaling $54,226.00" on Justia Law

The appellant was injured while inspecting an underground fiber optics project when he slipped and fell into a manhole, sustaining injuries to his right shoulder, left knee, and lower back. Initially, he did not report or seek compensation for a cervical spine (neck) injury. Several weeks later, he sought coverage for cervical spine surgery, claiming the work accident aggravated a preexisting condition. The Division denied coverage, concluding there was no causal relationship between the work accident and the cervical spine injury.After the denial, the appellant requested review, and the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) for a contested case hearing. The OAH found that the cervical spine injury was not caused by the work accident. The appellant appealed to the District Court of Natrona County, which affirmed the OAH’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the Division erred by referring the case to the OAH instead of the Medical Commission. The Court found that the primary issue—whether the cervical spine injury was caused by the work accident—required the application of medical judgment to complex medical facts and conflicting medical diagnoses. Under Wyoming law, such “medically contested cases” must be referred to the Medical Commission. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings before the Medical Commission, holding that the Division was required to refer the matter to the Medical Commission because it involved a medically contested issue. View "Polzer v. State ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to a report that a father struck his nine-year-old daughter, LC, in the head, causing her to fall and hit the floor. LC also reported verbal abuse, fear of retaliation, and concerns about inappropriate sexual behavior by her father, who is a registered sex offender. LC had a history of sexual exploitation or abuse by family members. The Wyoming Department of Family Services removed LC from the home, and the State filed a petition alleging physical and verbal abuse. The juvenile court placed LC in the Department’s custody and ordered supervised visits. The father admitted to the abuse allegations, and LC was adjudicated as a neglected child. A case plan was developed for the father, requiring him to complete a psychosexual evaluation, attend counseling, and meet other conditions. The father failed to complete the evaluation on time and did not engage in therapy, despite multiple referrals and reminders.The District Court of Goshen County initially ordered reunification as the permanency plan. After the father eventually completed the psychosexual evaluation, the Multidisciplinary Team recommended changing the plan to adoption, citing the father’s high risk of re-offending and ongoing safety concerns. The Department reported that the father had not made meaningful progress on his case plan, and LC’s therapist testified to LC’s fear of her father. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found the Department made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification, but those efforts were unsuccessful due to the father’s lack of engagement and risk factors. The court changed the permanency plan to adoption and ceased reunification efforts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, as the Department’s efforts were reasonable and reunification was not in LC’s best interest. The court also held that the juvenile court did not commit plain error by declining to adopt a concurrent permanency plan. The decision of the juvenile court was affirmed. View "L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

After their 2021 divorce, the parties agreed to joint custody of their two minor children and set a child support amount above the statutory presumptive level, with the father paying $1,700 per month. The father owns two businesses: an S-corporation and a limited liability company, both structured as pass-through entities, meaning their income is reported on his individual tax return. In 2023, the father sought to modify visitation due to changes in his work schedule, while the mother counter-petitioned to modify child support, ultimately dismissing her requests regarding custody and visitation.The District Court of Johnson County held a bench trial and denied the father’s request to modify visitation, finding no material change in circumstances. The court granted the mother’s petition to modify child support, calculating the father’s net monthly income at $40,110.66 and ordering him to pay $5,292 per month in child support. In reaching this figure, the court included both the pass-through income from the father’s businesses and the distributions reported on his individual tax return, as well as depreciation and amortization amounts from the LLC.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming found that the district court abused its discretion by effectively doubling the father’s income when it included both the pass-through amounts from the businesses and the distributions already reported on his tax return. The Supreme Court held that only the amounts reported on the father’s individual tax return should be included, and that adding both sources resulted in double counting. The court affirmed the inclusion of depreciation and amortization in the income calculation. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s child support order and remanded for further proceedings to recalculate the father’s net income and presumptive child support, instructing the lower court to obtain all relevant tax returns to ensure a complete financial picture. View "Stenson v. Stenson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a family in Evanston, Wyoming, where the State intervened after a five-day-old infant, SP, was hospitalized with a cerebral hemorrhage. Law enforcement took SP and three other minor children into protective custody, suspecting abuse or neglect by their parents, particularly focusing on the father, who is hearing-impaired and sometimes requires an ASL interpreter. The State filed a petition alleging abuse, and both parents initially denied the allegations. The children were placed in the custody of the Department of Family Services, and a permanency plan for family reunification with the mother was adopted.The District Court of Uinta County held several hearings, ensuring the father had access to an interpreter and legal counsel. During the proceedings, concerns about the father’s competency arose, but no formal motion for a competency evaluation was made. The father ultimately stipulated to the adjudication of neglect after being advised of his rights and confirming his understanding and voluntariness. Later, the father’s counsel sought to withdraw, citing communication difficulties, but the court denied the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances. When the father was incarcerated out of state, the court attempted to facilitate his participation in the disposition hearing, but he could only appear by phone, which was ineffective due to his hearing impairment. The court proceeded, denied the father’s motion to dismiss, and ordered the children to remain in state custody.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The Court held that deficiencies in the neglect petition did not deprive the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction, that a parent in neglect proceedings does not have a due process right to a competency evaluation, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel’s withdrawal. The Court also found no due process violation in proceeding with the disposition hearing without the father’s physical presence, given the circumstances and his representation by counsel. View "In the Interest of SP v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged with one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and four counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, based on allegations made by his stepdaughter (IB) and his biological daughter (TL). The allegations surfaced during a Department of Family Services investigation into the household, which led to forensic interviews of the children. Both IB and TL described incidents of sexual abuse involving the defendant. The defendant challenged the competency of the two minor victims to testify and, during trial, objected to the late disclosure of a follow-up interview with another child, JL, which contained statements about attempted abuse.The District Court of Campbell County held a pretrial hearing to determine the competency of IB and TL, ultimately finding both children competent to testify. During trial, after a forensic interviewer referenced JL’s follow-up interview, the defense moved for a mistrial, arguing a discovery violation. The district court denied the motion, instead striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it, while also providing the defense with the interview recording and the opportunity to recall witnesses. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and the district court imposed consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling several decades in prison.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in finding the children competent to testify and in denying the motions for mistrial. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in either respect. The court found the children’s testimony established their competency and that the late disclosure of JL’s interview did not constitute a Brady or Giglio violation, as the evidence was made available during trial and was not material to the defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the district court’s rulings. View "Lake v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who was convicted of first-degree arson after a fire occurred in his trailer home in Gillette, Wyoming. On the morning of the incident, a neighbor saw him borrow a lighter and leave the area; shortly after, smoke was observed coming from his trailer. The man was later seen at a nearby business, covered in bleach, and subsequently changed clothes before arriving at his ex-girlfriend’s house, where he smelled of cleaning supplies. Firefighters found multiple intentionally set fires inside the locked trailer, with no evidence of forced entry or accidental cause. The trailer was uninsured, and the defendant denied starting the fire, testifying that he was searching for his dogs at the time.The District Court of Campbell County held a jury trial, during which the defendant was found guilty of first-degree arson and sentenced to eight to fourteen years in prison. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the court erred by excluding evidence suggesting an alternative suspect—a former tenant who had previously threatened to burn down the trailer.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that there was substantial circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including his presence at the scene, the locked state of the trailer, the use of bleach, and the lack of evidence of another perpetrator. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the alternative suspect evidence, finding it to be inadmissible hearsay and lacking a direct nexus to the crime. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the conviction. View "Boyer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A man was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing his ten-year-old stepgranddaughter on two occasions in 2022. The abuse included inappropriate touching and digital penetration, occurring once in May and again in late August at the child’s home while he was babysitting. The child disclosed the abuse to her mother several weeks later, which led to a police investigation. During the investigation, the man denied the allegations and agreed to take a polygraph examination, which indicated no deception regarding whether he had touched the child’s vagina or buttocks on a specific Sunday in August. However, the abuse was alleged to have occurred on a Saturday and in May.The District Court of Campbell County presided over the trial. At trial, the State moved to exclude any reference to the polygraph examination, arguing it was inadmissible under Wyoming Rules of Evidence 702 and 403. The court granted the motion, and the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms. While his direct appeal was pending, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a Daubert hearing on the admissibility of the polygraph results. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding no prejudice because the polygraph evidence would not have been admissible.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the consolidated appeals, focusing solely on the denial of the Rule 21 motion. The court held that the defendant failed to show prejudice, as the polygraph results would not have satisfied the requirements for admissibility under Daubert and Rule 702, nor would they have assisted the jury or fit the facts of the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial. View "Morris v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

After a divorce in 2021, the parties were subject to separate court orders regarding custody and visitation of their minor child, DM. The mother was granted primary custody, with a planned 15-month transition to shared custody, which required reunification therapy for the father and DM. However, shared custody was never achieved, and DM remained in the mother’s primary care. In 2023, the mother petitioned to modify custody, visitation, and child support, arguing that the father had abandoned efforts to communicate with DM and that shared custody was not feasible due to his residence in Arizona. She also sought to adjust child support to reflect her continued primary custody.The District Court of Teton County held a bench trial to consider the mother’s petition. The court found that the circumstances had not materially changed since the original custody order, even though the order was not being followed. The court determined that DM’s welfare was unchanged, noting that DM continued to excel academically and socially, and that the estrangement between father and son persisted as it had at the time of the divorce. The court also found that the mother had not presented evidence of new efforts to foster the father-son relationship or that her relocation had impacted DM’s welfare. Consequently, the court denied the petition for modification of custody and child support.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no material change of circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the failure to comply with the custody order did not, in this instance, constitute a material change warranting modification. View "Cornell v. Mecartney" on Justia Law