Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting Heather Hope Schumacher’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement she entered into with Cowboy’s LLC after Cowboy’s failed to pay Schumacher the money as agreed.Schumacher claimed that her divorce decree awarded her certain property, that her ex-husband failed to convey the property to her, and that she had filed lien statements against the disputed property, which was then owned by Cowboy’s. The parties eventually reached a settlement agreement requiring Cowboy’s to pay Schumacher $98,742 in return for her release of all liens against the property. When Cowboy’s failed to pay Schumacher as agreed, Schumacher sought an order requiring Cowboy’s to comply with the settlement agreement. The district court ordered Cowboy’s to perform as agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Schumacher’s liens were valid and enforceable; and (2) the “deemed denial” of Cowboy’s motion to set aside the order enforcing the settlement agreement was properly denied. View "Cowboy's LLC v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Father and Stepmother’s petition for a decree of adoption allowing Stepmother to adopt MMM without Mother’s consent, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Father and Stepmother failed to establish that Mother willfully abandoned MMM or that she willfully failed to pay child support.Here, Father and Stepmother filed a petition for a decree of adoption in favor of Stepmother, without the consent of Mother, alleging that Mother willfully abandoned MMM and willfully failed to provide court-ordered child support. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Father and Stepmother failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Mother willfully abandoned MMM or willfully failed to pay child support during the relevant period. View "In re Adoption of MMM" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order modifying the child custody, visitation and support order entered when Father and Mother divorced.The district court modified the order by granting Mother primary custody of the parties’ children and awarding Father visitation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a material change of circumstances that was relevant to the welfare of the children warranted a modification to the joint custody order; (2) the court’s order changing custody served the children’s best interests; and (3) the district court did not err when it denied Father’s motion to require that Mother and the children be examined by a psychologist of Father’s choosing. View "Johnson v. Clifford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of first degree sexual abuse of a minor and three counts of second degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that the district court did not err by determining that the minor victim, FH, was competent to testify.On appeal, Defendant argued that the record did not support the district court’s determination that FH had a memory sufficient to retain an independent recollection of the abuse, and therefore, the five-part test adopted in Larsen v. State, 686 P.2d at 585 (Wyo. 1984), to determine a child witness’s competence to testify was not met. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court conducted the required analysis under Larsen, and the record supported the district court’s conclusion that FH had a sufficient memory to testify. View "Young v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction of one count of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance.The jury in this case concluded that Appellant committed sexual intrusion upon a non-consenting victim whom Appellant knew or had reason to believe was physically helpless. On appeal, Appellant argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to inadmissible evidence, failing to adequately advance her theory of the case, and failing to suppress the statements made by Appellant when under investigative detention. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in her representation of Appellant. View "Bruckner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s felony conviction for one count of sexual exploitation of a child - possession of child pornography.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct in rebuttal closing argument by arguing a theory of the case not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct where the prosecutor’s challenged statements were supported by and directly discerned from the victim’s testimony and the record gave no indication that the prosecutor intentionally misstated the evidence or argued an unreasonable inference from the victim’s testimony. View "King v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order requiring Defendant and her husband to be jointly and severally liable for the payment of $17,515 in restitution to Wyoming Medicaid for its expenditures on behalf of one of Defendant’s victims.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being an accessory to the second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a second minor. The district court ordered that Defendant and her husband were jointly and severally liable for the requested amount of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence contained in the presentence investigation report together with the victim impact statement made by the second victim’s mother at the sentencing hearing provided sufficient support for the district court’s award of $17,515 to Wyoming Medicaid. View "Smiley v. State" on Justia Law

In this divorce proceeding, the Supreme Court overruled its precedent disfavoring shared custody.The district court issued a final decision granting Mother and Father shared legal and physical custody of their minor child until he enters kindergarten and granted primary physical custody to Father with visitation for Mother after that. On appeal, Mother argued that the district court abused its discretion in ordering shared custody in violation of the Supreme Court’s clear rule that shared custody arrangements are disfavored. See Buttle v. Buttle, 196 P.3d 174 (Wyo. 2008). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s custody decisions were not an abuse of discretion. View "Bruegman v. Bruegman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, holding that, even if the photographic identification procedure used by law enforcement during their investigation of the crime was impermissibly suggestive, it did not give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.During the proceedings below, Appellant challenged the photo identification in a motion in limine. The motion was denied. On appeal, Appellant argued that the photo identification procedure violated his due process rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the identification was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the demands of due process, and therefore, the district court did not err in admitting the identification. View "Majhanovich v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that led to Defendant’s conviction for marijuana possession.Corporal Bradley Halter stopped Defendant for a traffic violation. When Defendant attempted to walk away from the traffic stop, Corporal Halter handcuffed Defendant. Because Defendant smelled of marijuana and was impaired, Corporal conducted a search of Defendant’s person, which produced methamphetamine, and, after a subsequent search, marijuana and hashish. After the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant entered a conditional plea to the possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Corporal Halter’s seizure of the methpahetamine and subsequent search was supported by both the plain feel doctrine and by standard probable cause considerations. View "Maestas v. State" on Justia Law