Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

On November 25, 2023, a Casper Police Department officer conducted a welfare check on David Wayne Gober, who was found walking in the street. After determining Gober was not in distress, the officer ran his name and discovered an active warrant for failure to pay a fine. Upon arresting Gober, officers searched him and found glass pipes, jeweler’s bags containing a small amount of a crystal-like substance, metal tooter pipes, and unused syringes. The substances in the pipes and bags tested positive for methamphetamine. Gober was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, as it was a third or subsequent offense.The District Court of Natrona County presided over Gober’s jury trial. During the trial, Gober argued that the methamphetamine found was only a trace amount and proposed a de minimis infraction theory of defense instruction, which would allow the jury to acquit if the conduct was too trivial to warrant conviction. The district court refused to give this instruction, reasoning that Wyoming law does not set a minimum amount of methamphetamine for criminal liability and that the proposed instruction was not a recognized defense under Wyoming law. The jury found Gober guilty, and he was sentenced to two to four years’ imprisonment, suspended in favor of two years’ supervised probation.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that the district court properly refused Gober’s proposed de minimis infraction instruction because Wyoming law criminalizes knowing or intentional possession of any amount of methamphetamine, regardless of quantity. The court found that the de minimis infraction defense is not recognized by Wyoming statute or case law for this offense and that the instruction would have improperly invited jury nullification. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Gober v. State" on Justia Law

A woman and her long-term partner jointly purchased a duplex in Florida, signing both a promissory note and a mortgage as joint obligors and joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The note required monthly payments and a $100,000 balloon payment. After making all monthly payments, they failed to pay the balloon payment when due. The partner died shortly thereafter, and the woman became the sole owner of the property. The lender sent a default notice, and the woman entered into a forbearance agreement but did not pay the balloon payment. The lender filed a creditor’s claim against the deceased partner’s estate, which was rejected, leading the lender to sue the estate for the unpaid amount.The District Court of Fremont County, Wyoming, found the estate liable for the full balloon payment and associated costs, and also found the woman jointly liable as a co-obligor. The estate then sought contribution from the woman, arguing she should pay her share of the debt. After a bench trial, the district court determined that both the woman and the estate were each responsible for 50% of the balloon payment and related fees, applying Florida’s doctrine of equitable contribution. The court rejected the woman’s arguments that she should not be liable due to alleged inequitable conduct by the estate or because the deceased partner had intended to pay the balloon payment himself.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s application of Florida law and its equitable determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the woman was jointly liable for 50% of the balloon payment and associated costs. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s application of the doctrine of equitable contribution, its rejection of the unclean hands defense, or its allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Hutton v. Dykes" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer observed a black sedan at a busy intersection in Campbell County, Wyoming. The sedan, driven by Andrew Boyer, was in the right lane behind an SUV. When the light turned green, the SUV did not move, and Boyer overtook it on the right to turn east, remaining on the paved surface. The officer, concerned about the safety of this maneuver and suspecting a traffic violation, followed Boyer. While following, dispatch informed the officer that the vehicle’s registered owner, Boyer, did not have a valid driver’s license. After stopping Boyer, the officer confirmed his identity and learned he possessed a physical license, though the officer knew this did not guarantee valid driving privileges. During the stop, a K-9 unit alerted to drugs in the vehicle, leading to a search that uncovered methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.Boyer was charged with several drug-related offenses and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that the scope of the stop was improperly expanded. The District Court of Campbell County denied the motion, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion both from observing the overtaking maneuver and from dispatch’s information about Boyer’s license status. The court also found the stop was not unnecessarily prolonged.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop based on both the observed traffic violation and the information from dispatch regarding Boyer’s license. The court concluded that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as the officer’s actions were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. View "Boyer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A property owner purchased a lot in a Wyoming subdivision governed by two homeowners’ associations, each enforcing its own set of covenants. The owner sought to demolish an existing structure and build a new residence with an attached hangar, submitting construction plans for approval as required. Disputes arose over whether his application was complete and whether the associations unreasonably delayed or withheld approval, resulting in increased construction costs due to inflation. Complicating matters, one association (AVR I) had been dissolved years earlier, but its board continued to act as if it existed, later forming a new entity (AVR II) that purported to enforce covenants recorded after AVR I’s dissolution but before AVR II’s formal creation.The property owner initially sued AVR I, believing it to be the proper party, and later sued the other association, AAA. During discovery, he learned that AVR I had been defunct and that AVR II was the actual entity acting as the homeowners’ association. He moved to amend his complaint to add AVR II and assert new claims, including that the covenants were invalid. The District Court of Lincoln County denied the motion to amend, finding the amendments would be futile, and granted summary judgment to AVR I, reasoning that the covenants automatically approved the owner’s plans by default and any delay was self-imposed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. The Supreme Court found that the proposed claims against AVR II were not futile, as there were unresolved factual and legal questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the covenants and AVR II’s authority. The court also held that summary judgment for AVR I was premature. The orders denying amendment and granting summary judgment were reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Conger v. AVR Homeowner's Association, Inc." on Justia Law