Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this dispute over Plaintiffs’ right to prepay a contract for deed and Defendant’s obligation to deliver the deed, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings in favor of Plaintiffs. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered Defendant to pay attorney fees and costs for discovery violations. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ statement of the dispositive issues, holding (1) Defendant's appeal of the declaratory judgment ruling was untimely; (2) the district court properly awarded fees and costs for failure to present cogent argument or pertinent authority; and (3) Plaintiff should be awarded sanctions pursuant to Wyo. R. App. P. 10.05. View "Byrnes v. Harper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order altering the plan for permanent placement for two boys from reunification of the family to termination of Father’s parental rights and adoption. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Father did not avail himself of the efforts made by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to reunify the family; and (2) therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the DFS made reasonable, but unsuccessful, efforts to supply Father with such services as might enhance his chances at reunification with his sons and that the permanency plan for the children should accordingly be changed to adoption. View "TW v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Pike and Susan Sullivan Foundation (the Foundation), on this action seeking a declaratory judgment and a judicial dissolution of the Foundation.Susan Sullivan and her late-husband Pike Sullivan established and funded the Foundation. The Sullivans and George Harris served as directors of the Foundation until Pike died, at which time his position on the board was filled by Mr. Harris’s wife. Susan later filed suit requesting that the court enter a declaration judgment to void Mrs. Harris’s election to the board and seeking judicial dissolution of the Foundation on the grounds that management of the Foundation would be deadlocked after Mrs. Harris’s election was invalidated. The district court granted summary judgment for the Foundation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Susan cannot sustain a claim for judicial dissolution of the Foundation based upon board deadlock; and (2) denying Susan’s request for a continuance of the summary judgment proceeding until discovery was complete. View "Sullivan v. Pike & Susan Sullivan Foundation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences imposed in connection with Defendant’s convictions of one count of conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, holding that the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a continuance did not deprive her of the opportunity to obtain and present evidence in mitigation of her sentence.After Defendant pleaded guilty of the offenses, she sought and obtained a continuance of the sentencing hearing. Defendant sought a second continuance shortly before the rescheduled hearing. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion under the circumstances of this case. View "Steinfeldt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault and attempted second-degree murder for stabbing her uncle, holding that the district court erred in declining to give the defense’s proposed instruction regarding the duty to retreat in one’s residence.Based upon its conclusion that Defendant was not a resident of her uncle’s home, the district court declined to give Defendant’s proposed castle doctrine instruction to the jury. The Supreme Court held that the district court improperly resolved the disputed factual question of whether Defendant was a resident of her uncle’s home because the question of Defendant’s residence was a factual one. Therefore, the question should have been submitted to the jury. If the jury determined the home to be Defendant’s residence, the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the castle doctrine. Further, the district court erred when it gave an incorrect malice definition and abused its discretion when it prohibited testimony of specific instances of conduct relating to the victim’s character for violence. View "Widdison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder, entered after a jury trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in several ways instructing the jury and that the court utilized an improper stepped verdict form. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) any error or confusion that may have existed in the jury instructions regarding the law of self defense could not have prejudiced Defendant; (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate plain error in the district court’s jury instructions regarding the State’s burden of proof regarding a “sudden heat of passion” in voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no plain error in the verdict form the district court submitted to the jury; and (4) the district court did not commit plain error when it did not provide the jury a definition of “recklessly” or “enhanced recklessness” within the instruction defining malice in second-degree murder. View "Johns v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a), holding (1) res judicata did not bar Defendant’s Rule 35(a) double jeopardy claim; and (2) the district court properly denied Defendant’s actual innocence and constructive denial of counsel claims on the basis that such claims are not cognizable under Rule 35(a).Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of third degree sexual assault and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not show good cause for failing to raise his double jeopardy claim in earlier proceedings, his claim was barred by res judicata; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims were not cognizable under a Rule 35(a) motion. View "Hicks 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 of a minor and one count of first degree sexual assault of a minor. The court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting uncharged acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the rape shield statute to prohibit Defendant from cross-examining one of the victims on her status as a victim in a prior sexual abuse case. View "Moser v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a detention and subsequent search of his vehicle.Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance and one count of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Defendant moved to suppress evidence based on the roadside search of his car, arguing that the initial traffic stop was not justified by reasonable suspicion and that the subsequent detention was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant conceded that the initial stop was justified but challenged the investigative detention. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing SH’s complaint against the Campbell County School District seeking to recover damages for injuries she received when she slipped and fell on a school playground. SH, who received special education services in accordance with an Individual Education Plan (IEP), claimed that the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act did not bar her suit against the school district because the IEP was a contract, and therefore, the Act’s exception to immunity for contract claims applied. The district court found that the IEP was not a contract and, accordingly, there was no exception to governmental immunity under the Act. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the IEP is not a contract; and (2) the IEP therefore does not create an exception to the School District’s governmental immunity. View "SH v. Campbell County School District" on Justia Law