Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Edward Eugene Robertson pled guilty to second-degree murder after admitting to shooting his wife, Dana Robertson, because he was angry about her alleged infidelity. Before sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. Robertson argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion.The District Court of Natrona County initially charged Robertson with first-degree murder. After a competency evaluation and a period of restoration at the Wyoming State Hospital, he was found competent to proceed. Robertson entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI), but later requested a change of plea to guilty for second-degree murder. The court accepted his guilty plea after ensuring it was made knowingly and voluntarily.Robertson filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea less than a month later, citing a change of mind and dissatisfaction with his representation. The district court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding no fair and just reason for withdrawal under W.R.Cr.P. 32(d). The court noted that Robertson had close assistance of counsel, his plea was knowing and voluntary, and his reasons for withdrawal were belated misgivings.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Frame factors to determine whether a fair and just reason existed for withdrawal. It found that Robertson did not assert his innocence credibly, had close assistance of counsel, and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robertson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Robertson v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Matthew Scott Iverson guilty of possessing and reproducing child pornography. The case arose when a housecleaner discovered a USB drive containing child pornography while preparing a rental property. The police investigation linked the USB drive and other electronic devices containing child pornography to Mr. Iverson. He was charged with five counts of sexual exploitation of children, including knowingly reproducing child pornography.The District Court of Laramie County instructed the jury on the elements of the crime but failed to include the mens rea element of "knowingly" reproducing child pornography. Mr. Iverson did not object to the jury instructions at trial. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to eight to ten years in prison for reproducing child pornography and five to ten years for each possession charge, with all sentences running concurrently.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court acknowledged that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the mens rea element. However, the court found that this error did not materially prejudice Mr. Iverson. The evidence presented at trial, including digital forensics and Mr. Iverson's own statements, overwhelmingly demonstrated that he knowingly reproduced child pornography. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if properly instructed. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Iverson v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Joey Garcia was convicted of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his camper and in summarily denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.The District Court of Fremont County denied Mr. Garcia’s motions to suppress, finding that the search warrant covered the camper and that the affidavit supporting the warrant did not contain material misrepresentations or omissions. The court also denied his motion for a new trial, which was based on potentially exculpatory evidence from Ms. Apadaca’s cell phone, without holding a hearing.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the search of the camper was within the scope of the warrant. The court found that the warrant and the supporting affidavit, when read together, clearly included the camper as a target of the search. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that there were no intentional or reckless misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit that would have misled the issuing judge.Regarding the motion for a new trial, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that any error in the district court’s failure to hold a hearing was harmless. The court noted that Mr. Garcia’s motion did not meet the criteria for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, as it did not allege that the evidence had come to his knowledge since the trial, was not due to a lack of due diligence, was material enough to produce a different verdict, or was not merely cumulative or for impeachment purposes.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings, upholding Mr. Garcia’s conviction and sentence. View "Garcia v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Samuel Nania was convicted by a jury of third-degree sexual assault. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred by excluding evidence of his polygraph examination during the trial. Nania contended that the district court should have analyzed the reliability of the polygraph examination before excluding it.The district court of Natrona County held a hearing on the State's motion in limine to exclude the polygraph evidence. The court granted the State's motion, ruling that polygraph testimony is inadmissible in Wyoming without a stipulation by the parties. Nania did not make a formal offer of proof regarding the polygraph results or the qualifications of the examiner, nor did he request a Daubert hearing to establish the reliability of the polygraph evidence.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court noted that Nania failed to provide a sufficient record to review the polygraph results or the qualifications of the examiner. The court also emphasized that Wyoming precedent requires a stipulation for the admissibility of polygraph evidence and that Nania did not meet this requirement. Additionally, the court found that even if the district court had erred, Nania did not demonstrate that the exclusion of the polygraph evidence prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to Nania had the polygraph evidence been admitted, given the substantial evidence against him, including his own admissions and witness testimonies.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the exclusion of the polygraph evidence was not an abuse of discretion and did not result in prejudicial error. View "Nania v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (Chesapeake) and Morton Production Company, LLC (Morton) entered into a joint operating agreement for oil and gas development in Converse County, Wyoming. Morton sued Chesapeake for breach of contract, violation of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA), and conversion after Chesapeake adjusted Morton’s ownership interest and withheld production proceeds. Chesapeake counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Morton.Chesapeake appealed, challenging the district court’s summary judgment on Morton’s breach of contract claim, the supplemental decision on Chesapeake’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, and the determination that Chesapeake violated the WRPA. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that Chesapeake breached the contract by adjusting Morton’s ownership interest and billing for costs beyond the twenty-four-month limitation period specified in the 1985 COPAS Form, which was incorporated into the joint operating agreement. The court found the language in the COPAS Form unambiguous and declined to consider extrinsic evidence. The court also upheld the district court’s use of Rule 60(a) to correct a clerical error in its original order and found that Chesapeake’s counterclaims were properly dismissed as they were rendered moot by the summary judgment on Morton’s claims. Additionally, the court ruled that Chesapeake violated the WRPA by withholding production proceeds without placing the disputed funds in escrow, as required by the statute. View "Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, v. Morton Production Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming filed a petition against MF (Mother) and JF (Father) on June 22, 2020, alleging neglect of their minor children, JF and TF. Following a shelter care hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. After a disposition hearing, the children remained in the custody of the Department of Family Services (the Department), with a permanency plan of family reunification. On January 19, 2024, after an evidentiary permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption.The juvenile court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court noted that Mother had made some progress but ultimately failed to consistently address the children's needs and safety concerns. The court also found that the children's best interests were served by changing the permanency plan to adoption, given their progress in foster care and the lack of stability and safety in Mother's care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption, as the Department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, which were unsuccessful. The court also found that the juvenile court's decision to cease reunification efforts with Mother was supported by Wyoming law, which allows for discontinuation of such efforts when they are inconsistent with the permanency plan.Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance of the permanency hearing or by the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings. The court found that Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the juvenile court's decisions were within the bounds of reason. The court also declined to adopt Mother's request for a change in procedures to require compliance with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence in evidentiary permanency hearings. View "In the Interest of: JF v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Anthony Torres was convicted by a jury of twelve counts of sexual abuse of a minor. He appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to amend its Information to add three additional charges of sexual abuse ten days before trial and by admitting three excerpts of a videotaped forensic interview of one of the minors into evidence.The District Court of Sweetwater County initially charged Torres with ten counts of sexual abuse involving his stepson, GT. Later, the State added a charge involving another minor, LT. Shortly before trial, the State moved to amend the Information to include three more charges based on new disclosures by LT. The district court granted the motion and continued the trial to a later date, which Torres' counsel agreed to. Torres was ultimately tried on fourteen counts and convicted on twelve.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to amend the Information. The court noted that the trial was continued to a date agreed upon by Torres' counsel, providing sufficient time to prepare a defense. The court also found that the amendments did not change Torres' defense strategy, which was to argue that the minors were influenced to fabricate their stories.Regarding the admission of the videotaped forensic interview excerpts, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The excerpts were admitted as prior consistent statements under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper influence. The court found that the statements were sufficiently consistent with the minors' trial testimony and that their admission was not unduly prejudicial.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, upholding Torres' convictions. View "Torres v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Wesley Brinda (Father) petitioned for a custody modification to change the current arrangement from primary residential custody with Stacey Walker (Mother) to shared residential custody. Mother counterpetitioned to modify child support. After a two-day bench trial, the district court found no material change in circumstances to justify reopening the current custodial order but modified the child support order. Father appealed the district court’s custody decision.The District Court of Campbell County initially awarded joint legal custody with Mother having primary residential custody of the children, AB and KB, based on Father’s rotating work schedule at a coal mine. After being laid off in 2016, Father became self-employed, allowing him more flexibility. In 2017, Father successfully petitioned to modify child support but did not request a custody modification. In 2021, Father filed a petition to modify custody, citing his flexible work schedule and the children’s desire to spend more time with him. Mother denied sufficient grounds for modifying custody but sought a review of child support.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining no material change in circumstances had occurred. The court found that while the children expressed a desire to spend more time with Father, the district court reasonably concluded that these preferences, along with Father’s career change, did not justify reopening the custody order. The court also found that the parties generally co-parented well and that the district court properly considered all evidence presented. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence. View "Brinda v. Walker" on Justia Law

Kenneth Charles Hoffman was convicted by a jury of five counts of sexual abuse of his minor stepdaughter, SD. The incident occurred on March 10, 2023, when SD, after consuming alcohol and marijuana provided by Hoffman, was sexually assaulted by him. The next morning, SD reported the incident, and a sexual assault examination revealed seminal fluid on a tampon she had used, though the DNA was insufficient to identify its source. SD had disclosed to law enforcement that she had been sexually active with someone else about a week and a half before the incident.The District Court of Weston County reviewed the case and denied Hoffman's motion to introduce evidence of SD’s prior sexual activity, which he argued would explain the presence of the seminal fluid. The court ruled that the probative value of this evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect, as required by Wyoming’s rape shield statute. Consequently, Hoffman was found guilty on all charges and sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of SD’s prior sexual activity. The Supreme Court noted that Hoffman failed to establish a material connection between the prior sexual activity and the seminal fluid found, as the DNA evidence neither included nor excluded him. The court affirmed that the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, thus affirming Hoffman's conviction and sentence. View "Hoffman v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Danny Jarvis pled guilty to burglary in violation of Wyoming law. Before sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied. He was subsequently sentenced to seven to ten years in prison. Jarvis appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.The district court of Weston County initially set Jarvis' bond at $10,000 cash, which was later reduced to a $10,000 personal surety bond to allow him to seek employment and attend drug treatment. Jarvis entered residential drug treatment but left to obtain medical care. At the change of plea hearing, Jarvis agreed to plead guilty to burglary in exchange for the dismissal of a felony property destruction charge. He confirmed there was no plea agreement regarding his sentence other than owing restitution. The court accepted his guilty plea after ensuring it was made knowingly and voluntarily.Jarvis later filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he was promised a "global deal" that included the dismissal of a DUI charge in a separate case. He argued this promise was not fulfilled, rendering his plea involuntary. The district court held a hearing, allowed Jarvis to proceed pro se, and took the motion under advisement. The court ultimately denied the motion, finding Jarvis failed to show a fair and just reason for withdrawal under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d).The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Jarvis did not assert his innocence, the State would not be prejudiced by withdrawal, and the delay in filing the motion was not substantial. However, the court determined Jarvis received close assistance of counsel, his plea was knowing and voluntary, and allowing withdrawal would waste judicial resources. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jarvis' motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Jarvis v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law