Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted appellant Donald Dean Foltz, Jr. of first-degree murder and the district court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole. Foltz was accused of child abuse towards his girlfriend’s two-year-old son. Foltz appealed his conviction, arguing the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because he contended the evidence was insufficient to support the charged against him. After review of the trial court record, the Wyoming Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Foltz’s conviction. View "Foltz, Jr. v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s conviction, rendered after a jury trial, for forgery, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction under the specific subparagraph of the forgery statute that Appellant was charged with violating.On appeal, Appellant argued that, to be convicted of forgery under subparagraph (ii) of the forgery statute, the “transfer” must cause the “writing” to “purport to be the act of another” and that the State never established the causal connection in this case. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal, holding (1) in the statutory phrase “transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another, the transfer must cause the writing to purport to be the act of another; and (2) applying this interpretation to the facts of this case, the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. View "Riddle v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court requiring Wife to return certain personal property Husband after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline.On appeal, Wife argued that, by allowing Husband to recover property after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline, the district court improperly modified the parties’ property settlement without the required written agreement. The settlement declared that no modification or waiver of the terms of the agreement shall be valid unless in writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not modify the parties’ agreement, but rather, the parties modified the agreement on their own, and the district court approved the modification. View "Acton v. Acton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated Plaintiffs’ petitions for writ of review from the circuit court’s decisions granting Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ separate claims asserting invasion of privacy, granted the petitions, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.In granting summary judgment for Defendant, the circuit court concluded that Wyoming does not recognize a cause of action for Plaintiffs’ privacy claims. Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to recognize a common law cause of action for the invasion of privacy tort defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 652B, as intrusion upon seclusion. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs, holding (1) the Restatement cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion is consistent with the value the state places on privacy; and (2) therefore, the tort is now recognized as part of Wyoming’s common law. View "Howard v. Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a minor and three counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the indecent liberties charge was duplicitous in that it alleged a single charge based on a course of conduct occurring during a twenty-eight month period. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant waived any duplicity defects by failing to object; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a single question asked by the prosecution, while potentially in violation of a pretrial order requiring notice to the trial court before inquiring into a specific area of facts, did not prejudice Defendant. View "Triplett v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant’s declaratory judgment action for lack of a justiciable controversy.Appellant’s driver’s license was suspended after her agreed to take a breath test and provided a breath sample indicating his blood alcohol concentration to be over the legal limit. Appellant initiated a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Wyoming Constitution prohibits a law enforcement officer from using the “deemed consent” provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-102(a)(i) to perform a warrantless chemical test incident to the lawful arrest of a motorist. The district court concluded that the request did not present a justiciable controversy and granted the Wyoming Department of Transportation’s motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the claim because Appellant failed to present a justiciable controversy. View "Leavitt v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court’s order recognizing and adopting the settlement Richard Hodson reached with Janet Sturgeon. In the settlement, the parties agreed to resolve their pending lawsuit and to divide their jointly owned property. Hodson challenged the district court’s order adopting the settlement through this pro se appeal, apparently arguing that the district court erred in refusing to enforce an agreement that allegedly existed before he filed his lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that Hodson failed to comply with the court’s rules of appellate procedure, and therefore, summarily affirmed the district court’s order. The court also granted Sturgeon’s request for an award of costs and attorney fees. View "Hodson v. Sturgeon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this complaint filed by Plaintiffs asserting a claim for adverse possession based on Plaintiffs’ fencing and grazing of livestock on a strip of Defendants’ property. The Supreme Court held (1) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Plaintiffs’ prima facie adverse possession claim, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this claim; and (2) the district court erred in granting Defendants summary judgment on their claim that Plaintiffs’ use of the disputed property was permissive. View "White v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of strangulation of a household member, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-509(a)(i). The court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s argument on appeal, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by withholding exculpatory information from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (2) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction of strangulation of a household member because there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that pressure was applied to the victim’s throat or neck and that any bodily injury was caused by impeding breathing or circulation. View "Davis v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying child support with respect to Mother’s daughter. In 2011, Mother and Father entered into an agreement modifying Father’s child support obligation. Approximately five years later, at Mother’s request, the Child Support Enforcement Program filed a petition to modify Father’s child support obligation. The district court entered an order modifying child support but granted a downward deviation from the presumptive child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by using the matrix for two children rather than one child when it calculated a deviation from the presumptive child support; and (2) properly made specific findings in its order for the reasons it granted a deviation pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 20-2-307(b). View "TSR v. State, ex rel., Department of Family Services" on Justia Law