Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gabriel Lee Testerman was found guilty by a jury of one count of first-degree sexual assault. The case involved two victims, CB and CM. CB testified that after meeting Testerman at a bar and later going to his house, she became disoriented after drinking a beverage he made. She alleged that Testerman sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated. CM, Testerman's former girlfriend, testified that he had previously forced her into non-consensual sexual acts, including using a spreader bar and engaging in anal sex while she was asleep.The District Court of Laramie County admitted evidence of prior bad acts under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) after a pretrial hearing. Testerman was charged with three counts of first-degree sexual assault, two related to CB and one to CM. The jury acquitted him of the charges related to CB but found him guilty of the charge related to CM. He was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Testerman argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by introducing unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and vouching for witnesses during closing arguments. The court reviewed the alleged unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and found that five instances were indeed unnoticed but concluded that Testerman was not materially prejudiced by their admission. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not constitute improper vouching.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and that Testerman was not deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct or cumulative error. View "Testerman v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Hanson was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for missing license plates. During a consent search of the vehicle, law enforcement discovered a firearm and drug paraphernalia with residue inside a backpack. Hanson was charged with and convicted of being a felon knowingly in possession of a firearm and third offense possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Hanson argued that the search of the vehicle was unlawful and that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence collected from the backpack. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress evidence as a discovery sanction.The District Court of Lincoln County denied Hanson’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the search was lawful and that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary. The court also denied Hanson’s second motion to suppress evidence disclosed by the State after the discovery deadline, concluding that the delay was not due to bad faith and that Hanson was not unduly prejudiced by the late disclosure. Hanson was subsequently found guilty on both counts and sentenced to imprisonment.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the traffic stop and subsequent search were lawful, as the officer’s questioning and request to search were reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary, considering the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanson’s motion to suppress the late-disclosed evidence, as the delay was not intentional and did not unduly prejudice Hanson. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s rulings and Hanson’s convictions. View "Hanson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

David Martorano (Father) and Melissa Mazzei (Mother) divorced in 2020 and share two children, BM and EM. The initial divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody and required Father to pay $1,800 per month in child support. In 2022, Mother sought to modify child custody and support. Both parties submitted confidential financial affidavits (CFAs) in late 2022, with Father reporting a net monthly income of $46,150 and Mother reporting $6,354. In October 2023, they updated their CFAs, with Father reporting a significant reduction in income to -$5,455 per month, citing decreased income from his employment and losses from his LLC, WY Knot Charters.The District Court of Natrona County calculated child support based on the figures from the 2022 CFAs, ordering Father to pay $7,830.94 per month and $90,464 in arrears. Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under W.R.C.P. 60, requesting the court to use his 2023 CFA and to recalculate arrears from October 2022 instead of August 2022. The district court granted the motion in part, recalculating arrears from October 2022 but maintaining the child support amount based on the 2022 CFA.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no clerical mistake or oversight in the district court's reliance on the 2022 CFA and determined that changing the income figures would result in a substantive modification of the judgment, which is not permissible under W.R.C.P. 60(a). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b), as the accuracy of the 2023 CFA was disputed, and the proper avenue for challenging the district court's discretion was a direct appeal, not a W.R.C.P. 60 motion. View "Martorano v. Mazzei" on Justia Law

Bryant Ross Montoya was convicted of felony property destruction after he intentionally rammed his truck into another vehicle driven by Samuel Kremer. The incident stemmed from a prior altercation between the two men, who were former friends. On the day of the incident, their accounts differed, with Montoya claiming self-defense after Kremer allegedly hit his truck first, while Kremer and an independent witness, Vincent Sandberg, reported that Montoya was the aggressor.The District Court of Laramie County instructed the jury on self-defense, using instructions that addressed the use of deadly force. Montoya did not object to these instructions during the trial. The jury found Montoya guilty, and he was sentenced to a prison term of two to four years, suspended in favor of three years of probation. Montoya appealed, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury on self-defense using deadly force rather than non-deadly force.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that although the record contained the allegedly erroneous instructions, Montoya did not demonstrate material prejudice. The court noted that the State's argument focused on Montoya being the aggressor, supported by testimony from Kremer and Sandberg. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different without the alleged error in the instructions. Consequently, the court affirmed Montoya's conviction. View "Montoya v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Bankers Standard Insurance Company (Bankers) filed a lawsuit against JTEC, Inc. (JTEC), a professional engineering firm, alleging that JTEC negligently designed a water mechanical system for a housing development in Jackson, Wyoming. The design flaw allegedly caused a water filter housing to fail, resulting in significant water damage to a home insured by Bankers. The design plans, which included the alleged defect, were revised multiple times, with the final set submitted on May 31, 2018.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and certified a question to the Wyoming Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of JTEC, determining that the statute of limitations barred Bankers' claim. The district court concluded that the relevant date for the statute of limitations was May 31, 2018, the last day JTEC provided professional services.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the certified question to determine when a professional’s act, error, or omission occurred under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107. The Court held that the absence of contractual privity is not relevant in determining when the statute of limitations attaches in a tort action. The statute of limitations attaches to the design that was the legal cause of the alleged injuries, meaning the act, error, or omission that was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiffs’ injuries.The Court concluded that the statute of limitations in § 1-3-107 attaches to the design that was used by the plumber to install the water entry detail at the Grossmans’ residence. However, the Court could not determine which set of engineering plans were used based on the facts presented. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings to establish which design was the legal cause of the alleged injuries. View "Bankers Standard Insurance Company v. JTEC, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2016, a divorce decree awarded Eric Van Genderen Sr. (Father) custody of his child, EVG, with visitation rights for Ekaterina Nicholaevna Pokrovskaya (Mother). In 2022, Mother sought to modify her visitation rights, alleging Father was alienating EVG from her and not adhering to the visitation terms. The district court found a material change in circumstances and modified the visitation schedule to include a graduated plan starting with supervised visits.The District Court of Teton County granted Mother’s request for modification, establishing a graduated visitation schedule due to Father’s refusal to allow meaningful contact between Mother and EVG. The court found it in EVG’s best interests to amend the visitation schedule, starting with supervised visits and potentially leading to unsupervised visits. Father was ordered to pay for Mother’s travel expenses during the transition period.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the matter and that Mother’s appeal was timely. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s detailed and clear visitation schedule, which considered the best interests of EVG, including the quality of the parent-child relationship, the ability of each parent to provide care, and the geographic distance between the parents. The court also upheld the allocation of travel costs to Mother after the transition period, noting that the district court’s decision was reasonable and within its discretion. The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were supported by the evidence and affirmed the modified visitation order. View "Pokrovskaya v. Van Genderen" on Justia Law

Karl Gustke, the criminal defendant, was released on a $100,000 surety bond, for which his father, John Gustke, was jointly liable through a promissory note and indemnity agreement. Karl violated his bond conditions by consuming alcohol, removing his GPS ankle monitor, and absconding from the state. Consequently, the bond was forfeited. John Gustke petitioned to intervene in the forfeiture proceedings, seeking remission of the forfeited bond.Initially, the district court denied John's motion to intervene, but the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed this decision in a prior appeal (Gustke I), remanding the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court allowed John to intervene and present evidence. After considering the evidence, the district court ordered $25,000 of the forfeited bond to be remitted to John, while upholding the forfeiture of the remaining $75,000. John appealed this decision.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion. The court considered factors such as the willfulness of Karl's breach, the costs and inconvenience to the government, the participation of the surety in apprehending Karl, and any mitigating factors. The court found that Karl's willful violation of bond conditions and the resulting costs and delays justified a substantial forfeiture. The district court had considered mitigating factors, including Karl's mental health and John's efforts to locate him, but found these did not fully outweigh the need for forfeiture.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the remission of $25,000 of the $100,000 bond was reasonable and supported by sufficient evidence, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Gustke v. State" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners (State Board), granted Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) to permittees for the use of state land in Teton County. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (County Board) issued abatement notices to the permittees, asserting violations of county land use regulations. The State Board sought a declaration that it and its permittees were not subject to these regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Board, and the County Board appealed.The district court found that the State Board and its permittees were not subject to Teton County's land use and development regulations. The County Board argued that Wyoming statutes required compliance with local zoning laws for state lands under long-term leases and TUPs. The State Board countered that sovereign immunity protected it from such regulations and that the statutes did not apply to TUPs.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP are not subject to county land use and development regulations. The court reasoned that while Wyoming statutes require compliance with local zoning laws for long-term leases of state lands, they do not impose the same requirement for TUPs. The court emphasized that the legislature's omission of TUPs from the statutory requirement for compliance with local zoning laws was intentional. Therefore, the County Board lacked the authority to enforce its land use regulations against the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP. View "Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Officers Jacob Ondich and Mathew Lougee of the Casper Police Department arrested Daniel Charles Hemmer at his home and transported him to the Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC). Hemmer was charged with felony theft and entered a no-contest plea in December 2023. Subsequently, Hemmer filed a civil suit against the officers, the Casper Police Department, and NCDC, alleging unlawful entry, arrest without probable cause or a warrant, and a strip search at NCDC. He claimed the officers' actions constituted kidnapping and sought $12 million in damages.The Natrona County District Court dismissed Hemmer's complaint. The court found that Hemmer did not allege facts showing NCDC's involvement in his arrest or provide legal authority for his claims against the detention center. The court also dismissed the claims against the Casper Police Department due to a lack of specific allegations. The kidnapping claim against the officers was dismissed because Hemmer did not support it with legal authority. Additionally, the court concluded that Hemmer failed to submit a timely notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court noted that Hemmer's pro se brief did not comply with appellate rules, lacked a statement of issues, and failed to present cogent arguments supported by legal authority. The court emphasized that while pro se litigants are given some leniency, they must still reasonably comply with procedural rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Hemmer's complaint. View "Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department" on Justia Law

Michael and Mallory Nay, guardians of JDV, sought to terminate the parental rights of JDV’s natural father, Michael Session, alleging he had left JDV in their care without support or communication for over a year, except for a few incidental visits. The district court granted the Nays' petition and terminated Mr. Session’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). Mr. Session appealed the decision.The District Court of Carbon County initially granted the Nays guardianship of JDV in 2021, with Mr. Session’s consent, and ordered the Nays to facilitate monthly visitation between Mr. Session and JDV. In 2023, the Nays petitioned to terminate Mr. Session’s parental rights, citing his lack of support and minimal contact with JDV. The district court found that Mr. Session had not provided financial support or maintained meaningful communication with JDV, deeming his few visits as incidental.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that judicial estoppel did not prevent the Nays and the guardian ad litem from arguing that terminating Mr. Session’s parental rights was in JDV’s best interests, despite their earlier stance during the guardianship proceedings. The court found that the Nays had fulfilled their obligation to facilitate visitation and that Mr. Session’s limited contacts with JDV were incidental and insufficient to prevent termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). The court also concluded that Mr. Session’s substantive due process rights were not violated, as the Nays had made reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation, and Mr. Session had failed to maintain a relationship with JDV. View "In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Jdv, a Minor Child" on Justia Law