Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of third-degree sexual assault, holding that, on retrial, the district court inadequately instructed the jury.Defendant's first jury trial ended in not-guilty verdicts on two counts and a mistrial on the third count. On retrial, the jury found Defendant guilty of third-degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, asserting that the second trial violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant's second trial for third-degree sexual assault did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; but (2) the jury was not properly instructed on the law under which it could find Defendant guilty of third-degree sexual assault. View "Cercy v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) causing serious bodily injury but remanded for issuance of a corrected sentencing order, holding that Defendant's 211-day sentence on Count V, fleeing or attempting to elude police officers was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum and that the district court's written sentence failed to conform to its oral pronouncement with respect to credit for time served.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Defendant of DUI causing serious bodily injury; and (2) Defendant's sentence for fleeing or attempting to elude police officers was illegal because it clearly exceeded the statutory maximum, and the district court's written sentence failed clearly to conform to its oral pronouncement and the law with respect to credit for time served. View "Nesius v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating the parental rights of Mother to her three minor daughters, holding that the district court erred in allocating peremptory challenges, but the improper allocation was not reversible error, and the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the children's sexual abuse allegations.Specifically, the Court held that the district court (1) erred when it failed to equalize peremptory challenges by either giving Mother additional challenges or requiring the Department of Family Services and guardian ad litem to share challenges, but the error was not reversible; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of the children's sexual abuse allegations and by excluding evidence of whether the allegations had been substantiated or were under investigation. View "Ellis v. State, Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after a search of his camper, holding that the search warrant contained sufficient untainted evidence to establish probable cause to search the camper.Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, challenging the reasonableness of a search on September 8, 2017 and the probable cause for search warrants issued on September 9, 2017 and September 12, 2017. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's guilty plea did not preserve a Franks argument; and (2) even assuming the law enforcement officer unconstitutionally searched the camper when he opened plastic covering to look through a window on September 8, the warrant affidavit established probable cause through evidence attributable to the officer's unchallenged look through another window. View "Workman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of Defendant's vehicle, holding that the law enforcement officer did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for a drug-dog sniff of his vehicle.Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of more than three ounces of marijuana. Defendant verbally reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) while conditional plea agreements are typically required, under the unique circumstances of this case this Court exercises its discretion to review the verbally-reserved issue; and (2) Defendant was not seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment when the officer stopped him for following another vehicle too closely, and Defendant had reasonable suspicion justifying detaining Defendant for a drug-dog sniff of the vehicle. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

In this dissolution proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the court did not improperly deny Appellant's motion for a continuance of the divorce trial and did not improperly punish Appellant for fault in dividing the marital property.In bifurcated proceedings, the district court entered a divorce decree and then ordered the division of the marital property, each party essentially receiving his and her premarital assets. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant's second motion for continuance of the trial; and (2) the property division did not improperly punish Appellant for her fault. View "Conzelman v. Conzelman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the district court's "Order on Petition for Revocation of Probation" and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to award Appellant an additional 341 days of credit for time served, holding that Appellant should receive an additional 341 days of credit for time served.Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a felony amount of methamphetamine. The district court revoked Appellant's initial probation and imposed a split sentence. Appellant subsequently spent time in jail and in residential treatment. After he completed residential treatment Appellant entered the probationary term of his split sentence. The probation was later revoked. The district court then entered the order at issue, revoking Appellant's probation and imposing a three to five-year sentence, with credit for 120 days served. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Appellant should receive an additional 341 days of credit for time served, from the time the split sentence was imposed through the time he was released from residential treatment/custody. View "Hoback v. State" on Justia Law

In this complaint for establishment of a private road the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court adopting the viewers and appraisers' recommendations regarding the route conditions and use restrictions, and damages, holding that the court erred in its award of damages.Appellee brought this action proposing that the court designate a route along an existing, unnamed, two-track road that is already subject to easements. The district court appointed three viewers to assess the proposed routes and submit recommendations to the court for the private road, any conditions and restrictions that should be placed on the private road, and damages. The district court determined that the viewers' route represented the most reasonable and convenient route for the private road, declined to impose Appellants' requested restrictions, and adopted the viewers' recommendation as to damages. The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on damages, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it designated the viewers' route for Appellee's private road; (2) did not err when it declined to limit use of the private road to a single family dwelling and agricultural purposes and to prohibit Appellee from using it for subdivision; but (3) erred in its award of damages. View "Sharpe v. Timchula" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue, holding that venue was not proper in Sheridan County.Plaintiffs brought this action in Sheridan County for legal malpractice against two attorneys and their firm. Defendants resided and had their personal place of business in Albany County. Defendants were served with the complaint at their place of business in Albany County. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that venue was improper in Sheridan County. The district court denied the motion, finding that Defendants could reasonably have expected to be summoned in Sheridan County. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Defendants' motion to dismiss based on an erroneous interpretation of the venue provision in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-5-108. View "Aron v. Willey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Jackson Hole Airport Board and dismissing Appellants' petition for declaratory judgment challenging the validity of an asset purchase agreement between the Board and Jackson Hole Aviation, holding that airport boards have the statutory authority to issue revenue bonds to fund the purchase of intangible property, including goodwill.Appellants were two entities interested in providing services at Jackson Hole Airport and individuals dissatisfied with the Airport's current services. Appellants brought this action claiming that the purchase agreement between the Board and Jackson Hole Aviation, the current service provider at the Airport, exceeded the Board's statutory authority because the Board could not acquire intangible assets using revenue bond funding. The district court concluded that the term "other property" in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 10-5-101(a) authorized the use of revenue bonds for purchases of both tangible and intangible property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 10-5-101(a) authorized purchases of both tangible and intangible property and that the district court correctly determined that goodwill is intangible property included in the term "other property" found in section 10-5-101(a). View "Herrick v. Jackson Hole Airport Board" on Justia Law