Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's petition for relief from the requirement that Defendant register as a sex offender in Wyoming pursuant to the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act, holding that the district court's rulings concerning Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation's (DCI) authority under the Act were erroneous.In 1999, Defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery in Georgia. In 2019, a federal agency informed DCI that that it had intercepted a firearm suppressor addressed to Defendant, who was living in Casper, Wyoming. After discovering his Georgia conviction, DCI directed Defendant to register as a sex offender in the state. Defendant filed a petition seeking relief from the requirement. The district court granted DCI summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the Act's requirement to register as a sex offender is premised on a conviction, DCI may not rely on dismissed charges to determine an individual's registration requirements; and (2) DCI may not require someone to register before it knows that he was convicted of a registrable offense. View "Minter v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of immodest, immoral, and indecent liberties with a minor, third-degree sexual assault, and first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his four allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of third-degree sexual assault; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the error; (3) the prosecutor made a statement during the State's closing argument regarding the victim's veracity, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the error; and (4) there was no reasonable possibility that cumulative effect of the errors at trial deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part Petitioners' petition for a writ of review seeking interlocutory review of the orders of the district court denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss and motion to set aside default, holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment.At issue was subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction based on service by publication. Petitioners argued that the failure to serve Defendants with a summons stripped the district court of both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. The First Circuit held (1) absent a statute or rule to the contrary, no summons is required when service is accomplished by publication; (2) the district court correctly determined that a summons is not required as to those defendants who are properly subject to service by publication; but (3) the court erred in finding the service by publication conferred personal jurisdiction over the defendants with a known address. View "Hopeful v. Etchepare, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court after a trial quieting title of certain property in favor of Appellees, the owners of the Warbonnet Ranch, after finding that Appellant, the owner of the Burnett Ranch, failed to meet its prima facie case establishing the elements of adverse possession, holding that there was no error.The Burnett Ranch was enclosed by a perimeter fence, within which were three non-contiguous parcels of property (subject property) that were part of the Warbonnet Ranch and deeded to Appellees. Appellant brought this action asserting that it owned the subject property by adverse possession through its use of the property for grazing cattle and by maintaining the permitter fence. The district court entered summary judgment for Appellees, but the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that genuine issues of material fact existed. On remand, after a trial, the trial court entered judgment for Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Little Medicine Creek Ranch, Inc. v. d'Elia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Albany County approving ConnectGen Albany County LLC's application for a Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) permit to construct a wind farm on Albany County land, holding that Appellants were not entitled to relief.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) contrary to Appellants' argument on appeal, ConnectGen was not required to obtain a conditional use permit in addition to the WECS special use permit; (2) the Board's approval of the WECS special use permit was not arbitrary or capricious; and (3) Appellants failed to establish that the Board's approval of the WECS special use permit was a taking of private property in violation of Wyo. Const. art. 1, 32. View "Aanonsen v. Bd. of County Commissioners of Albany County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for misdemeanor interference with a peace officer stemming from his act of resisting when police officers entered his home without a warrant to arrest him for a misdemeanor crime, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant's conviction could not stand.On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers' warrantless entry into his home was unlawful, and therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the officers in this case were not "engaged in the lawful performance" of their official duties when they entered Defendant's home without a warrant, as required to convict him under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-5-204(a); and (2) because the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's home was per se unreasonable, the warrantless entry into Defendant's home to execute a warrantless arrest violated Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment. View "Woods v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted certification of a question from the district court regarding the authority of a court-appointed guardian and conservator of an incompetent adult ward to petition the district court for the ward's divorce and concluded that neither a guardian nor a conservator has the power under Wyoming law to pursue a divorce on behalf of a ward.Guardian/Conservator, who was appointed as guardian of Madonna Flory's person and conservator of her estate, filed a complaint for Ms. Flory's divorce from Rand Flory. The parties agreed that there was no controlling Wyoming precedent on the issue of whether a guardian or conservator could file for divorce on behalf of a ward, and the district court certified the question to the Supreme Court. In response the Supreme Court answered that Wyoming law does not permit a a guardian or conservator to move for and prosecute a divorce action on behalf of the ward. View "Flory v. Flory" on Justia Law

The Morningstars contracted to purchase a residential property from the Robisons, who intended to buy a nearby vacant lot and build a new house. When the lot they wished to buy was purchased by someone else, the Robisons failed to comply with the terms of the contract with the Morningstars. The Morningstars sought specific performance and monetary damages. The district court found the Robisons breached the contract, but denied the request for specific performance and awarded monetary damages.The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed. The district court erred in placing the burden on the Morningstars to prove monetary damages were an inadequate or impractical remedy and abused its discretion when it found specific performance was not an appropriate remedy. After finding only one of the special equities factors weighed in favor of the Robisons, the court essentially rewrote the contract to allow the Robisons to cancel because their preferred lot was unavailable. The Robisons admit they “had no legal recourse to cancel.” On remand, when determining if any monetary damages should be awarded in addition to specific performance, the court’s “guiding principle” should be to relate the contract back to August 2021, and place the Morningstars in as nearly the same position as they would have been in if the Robisons had not breached the contract. View "Morningstar v. Robison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of stalking his ex-wife, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial and that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in instructing the jury.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony stalking and sentenced to four to six years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under either Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by giving instruction number fourteen because it described stalking as a general intent crime when it, in fact, is a specific intent crime, but Appellant did not meet his burden to demonstrate prejudice. View "Person v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part and reversed in part the orders of the probate court and district court in these probate and partition matters, holding that remand was required.Dwight and Betty Lyman, as Trustees of their living trust (Lyman Trust), owned a parcel of property as tenants in common with George Fisher and another parcel in common with George's deceased parents. George sold his parents' interests in the two parcels to the Childs Trust. Lyman Trust filed a petition in the district court seeking to partition the parcels and filed a motion in the probate court seeking to set aside the sale. The probate court denied the motion, and the district court dismissed the partition petition without prejudice for failure to join Childs Trust as a required party. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed Lyman Trust's appeal of the probate court's actions, holding that Lyman Trust lacked standing in the Fisher probate action; and (2) reversed the district court's judgment dismissing Lyman Trust's partition action, holding that the court erred by dismissing the action rather than ordering the joinder of Childs Trust, and dismissal was not harmless. View "Lyman v. Fisher" on Justia Law