Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court reversing the decision of the State Board of Equalization affirming the ruling of the County Board of Equalization against the Town of Pine Bluffs in its appeal from the Laramie County Assessor's denial of a request for exemption from taxation for a daycare facility operated by the Town, holding that the County Board's order was in accordance with law, was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and was supported by substantial evidence in the record.In 201y, the Town filed requests for exemption from the assessment of its daycare facility. The County Assessor denied the requests, and the County Board and State Board affirmed. The district court ruled in favor of the Town and reversed the decision of the State Board. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the order of the County Board, holding that the County Board's decision did not constitute reversible error. View "Eisele v. Town of Pine Bluffs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decree of divorce and order awarding custody and dividing property and debts between Father and Mother, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering supervised visitation and dividing the marital property but abused its discretion in calculating Father's child support amount.Father argued that the district court abused its discretion in restricting Father's visitation with his four children to two hours of supervised visitation every other week until Father addressed the court's concerns regarding his anger. Father further argued that the court abused its discretion when it divided the marital property and when it found him voluntarily underemployed for not working overtime. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it imposed supervised visitation, finding Father had abused the children, and conditioning visitation on counseling for both Father and the children; (2) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property; but (3) abused its discretion when it circumvented the express statutory limitation set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-303(a)(ii) prohibiting courts from including in child support calculations any earnings derived from overtime work. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's declaratory judgment action arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), and therefore the district court on appeal, did not have jurisdiction to decide his claim that a policy officer violated his due process right to an independent blood test, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the declaratory judgment action.A police officer arrested Appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol. After an officer performed a chemical breath test, Appellant was issued a suspension order for his driver's license. Appellant requested a contested case hearing, arguing that the officer denied him the statutory ability to obtain a blood test at his own expense. The OAH upheld the suspension order, finding that the officer did not deprive Appellant of his right to an independent blood test. Appellant appealed and filed a separate declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that law enforcement violated his statutory and substantive due process rights to independent testing. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH had jurisdiction over Appellant's administrative proceeding; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the declaratory judgment action. View "Johnson v. State ex rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying the petition filed by Mother and Stepfather to adopt the minor child, ZEM, over the objection of the child's father, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petition for adoption on best interests grounds.In their verified petition for adoption Mother and Stepfather claimed that Father failed financially to support ZEM and that it was ZEM's best interest to terminate Father's parental rights and allow Stepfather to adopt her. The district court concluded that adoption did not serve ZEM's best interests and denied the petition to adopt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where the district court carefully weighed conflicting evidence, determined credibility, and came to a reasonable conclusion, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adoption. View "JEG v. BCB" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and one count of interference with a peace officer, holding that Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the extension of Defendant's traffic stop.The traffic stop in this case led to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's vehicle. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the initial stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the duration of the traffic stop in his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) Wyo. R. Crim. P. 12(b) precluded plain error review of the issues not raised in Defendant's motion to suppress evidence; and (2) Defendant showed a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to challenge the duration of the stop and the actions of law enforcement officers during the stop, the outcome of the trial would have been different. View "Mills v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of three counts of second-degree sexual assault, holding that the district court did not plainly err in failing to instruct the jury that it had to fine beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted voluntarily.On appeal, Defendant argued that because second-degree sexual assault is a general intent crime, it required a voluntary act, and therefore, the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the mens rea element of second-degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no instruction on voluntariness was required where Defendant did not show she was prejudiced by any alleged failure to provide a voluntariness instruction to the jury and Defendant did not present any evidence suggesting her actions were not voluntary. View "Wyant v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, holding that the State's evidence at trial was sufficient to prove Defendant constructively possessed the marijuana.A jury found Defendant guilty of possession with intent to deliver marijuana in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1031(a)(ii). The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of incarceration of four to nine years, sentence suspended. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he possessed the marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State's evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that Defendant had constructive possession of the marijuana. View "Pyles v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two minor children under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v), holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court properly granted the motion filed by the Department of Family Services for leave to amend its petition; (2) Mother did not preserve her right to challenge the district court's allocation of peremptory challenges; and (3) clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Mother's parental rights. View "Harmon v. State, Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-233(b)(i) and (b)(iii), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and that Defendant was not denied due process or an opportunity to conduct an effective cross-examination at trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by admitting his BAC because the State failed to establish that his blood analysis was performed according to methods approved by the Wyoming Department of Health and that the error was prejudicial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court should have compelled production of a linearity study related to the calibrator for Defendant's blood samples test, but the error was harmless; and (2) Defendant was not denied his constitutional right to due process or an opportunity to confront the State's witnesses. View "Hardman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition to modify alimony payments to Mother, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed and in refusing to modify alimony.When Mother and Father divorced, the parties stipulated to a split custody arrangement. The district court ordered Father to pay child support of $1740 per month and monthly alimony of $1800 for five years. After Father was terminated from his job, Father filed a pro se petition to modify alimony. The district court denied Father's petition, finding that Father was voluntarily underemployed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's petition to modify alimony payments. View "Linden v. Linden" on Justia Law