Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Timothy Duke was identified as one of the burglars involved in the theft of numerous items from three properties owned by Joseph Walsh in Cheyenne. The stolen items included cash, collectible coins, firearms, trade tokens, and antique police badges. Following an investigation, police recovered some of the stolen items from Duke's home, vehicle, and trailer. Duke was charged with theft over $1,000 and aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to the aggravated burglary charge as part of a plea agreement, and the theft charge was dismissed. Duke agreed to pay restitution jointly and severally with his co-defendants.The District Court of Laramie County held a restitution hearing where Walsh testified about the stolen items and their estimated values. The court also considered a presentence investigation report and victim impact statements. The court ordered Duke to pay $507,000 in restitution, finding the State had provided sufficient evidence to support the amount claimed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case to determine if the district court abused its discretion in setting the restitution amount. The court found that Walsh's testimony, the State's supporting exhibits, and the presentence investigation report provided a reasonable basis for the restitution award. Walsh's detailed testimony about the stolen items and their values, corroborated by the presentence investigation report and victim impact statements, was deemed credible and sufficient.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's restitution order, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the restitution amount was supported by sufficient evidence. View "Duke v. State" on Justia Law

Jeremy Clay was arrested for traffic violations and drug offenses on September 23, 2023, and later charged with failure to register as a convicted sex offender. He pled guilty to the failure to register charge and was sentenced to three to five years of incarceration, with all but thirty days suspended, followed by three years of supervised probation. Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence. On June 28, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging violations including failure to contact his probation agent, leaving Wyoming without permission, and failing to make a required payment. Clay admitted to the violations at a hearing, and the court revoked his probation, sentencing him to nine months in jail, suspended in favor of a split sentence of seventy-two days in jail followed by three years of supervised probation. He timely appealed the probation revocation order.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. Clay's appeal focused on alleged violations of his rights during the original criminal proceedings, including claims of Fourth Amendment violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review these claims because Clay did not appeal the original judgment and sentence within the required thirty days.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, applying res judicata principles. The court held that Clay's claims were barred by res judicata because he could have raised them in a direct appeal of the original judgment and sentence but failed to do so. The court determined that the parties, subject matter, and issues were the same in both the original criminal proceeding and the probation revocation, and Clay did not show good cause for failing to raise the issues earlier. As a result, Clay was not entitled to relief from the court. View "Clay v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement traced the online distribution of child pornography to the defendant after receiving a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A search of his home led to the discovery of numerous video files containing child pornography, and the defendant admitted to both possessing and distributing such material for profit. He was charged with 20 counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child, with some counts relating to files uploaded on a specific date and others to files found on his computer during the search.The defendant pled guilty to all charges in the District Court of Big Horn County. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms for counts 1–14 and separate concurrent terms for counts 15–20, with the latter to run consecutively to the former. The defendant did not file a direct appeal. Later, he filed a motion under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) to correct what he argued was an illegal sentence, claiming that the multiple convictions and sentences violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same act. The district court denied the motion, finding the sentences appropriate based on the guilty pleas and the evidence of separate acts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that the defendant’s double jeopardy claim was barred by res judicata because he could have raised it on direct appeal but did not, and he failed to show good cause for this omission. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to correct the sentence. However, the Supreme Court identified a discrepancy between the oral and written sentences and remanded the case to the district court solely to correct the written sentence so that it conforms to the oral pronouncement. View "Bernard v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

David Herrera, Jr. pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to five to eight years in prison by the district court, which recommended his placement in the Youthful Offender Transition Program (YOTP). Herrera filed a motion for sentence reduction upon nearing completion of the YOTP, asserting that the district court had promised to reduce his sentence if he successfully completed the program.The district court denied Herrera’s motion for sentence reduction without holding a hearing or providing an explanation. Herrera appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by not honoring the promise made during sentencing.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing, which stated Herrera “will get a sentence reduction” if he completed the YOTP, constituted an express commitment. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion for sentence reduction without justification, given the prior commitment. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further sentencing proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Herrera v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In July 2021, Ryan Schroeder was reported missing, leading to an investigation by the Casper Police Department. Schroeder's last known location was in Denver, and his cell phone records showed communication with Justin Marquez until June 26, 2021. Detectives interviewed Marquez, who admitted to being in Denver but denied picking up Schroeder. Another witness, Jeremiah Cox, last saw Schroeder getting into a maroon SUV with Marquez. Detectives obtained a warrant for Marquez's cell phone records and discovered he owned a maroon Hyundai SUV. A search of the vehicle revealed blood stains and a decomposition odor, leading to further investigation and the discovery of Schroeder's body.The District Court of Natrona County denied Marquez's motion to designate an expert witness after the deadline and two motions to suppress evidence. Marquez argued the search of his vehicle exceeded the warrant's scope and that the warrant contained misrepresentations and omissions. The court found the Hyundai was the intended subject of the warrant and denied the motions to suppress.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late expert witness designation, as Marquez's own conduct caused the delay. The court also found no violation of Marquez's right to compulsory process. Regarding the motions to suppress, the court concluded the search warrant and accompanying affidavits sufficiently described the Hyundai, and there was no reasonable probability of mistakenly searching another premise. The court also found no clear error in the district court's conclusion that Marquez failed to prove intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of material information in the affidavits. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings and Marquez's conviction. View "Marquez v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Gabriel Lee Testerman was found guilty by a jury of one count of first-degree sexual assault. The case involved two victims, CB and CM. CB testified that after meeting Testerman at a bar and later going to his house, she became disoriented after drinking a beverage he made. She alleged that Testerman sexually assaulted her while she was incapacitated. CM, Testerman's former girlfriend, testified that he had previously forced her into non-consensual sexual acts, including using a spreader bar and engaging in anal sex while she was asleep.The District Court of Laramie County admitted evidence of prior bad acts under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) after a pretrial hearing. Testerman was charged with three counts of first-degree sexual assault, two related to CB and one to CM. The jury acquitted him of the charges related to CB but found him guilty of the charge related to CM. He was sentenced to ten to fifteen years in prison.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Testerman argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by introducing unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and vouching for witnesses during closing arguments. The court reviewed the alleged unnoticed Rule 404(b) evidence and found that five instances were indeed unnoticed but concluded that Testerman was not materially prejudiced by their admission. The court also found that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not constitute improper vouching.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and that Testerman was not deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct or cumulative error. View "Testerman v. State" on Justia Law

Richard Hanson was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for missing license plates. During a consent search of the vehicle, law enforcement discovered a firearm and drug paraphernalia with residue inside a backpack. Hanson was charged with and convicted of being a felon knowingly in possession of a firearm and third offense possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Hanson argued that the search of the vehicle was unlawful and that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence collected from the backpack. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to suppress evidence as a discovery sanction.The District Court of Lincoln County denied Hanson’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the search was lawful and that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary. The court also denied Hanson’s second motion to suppress evidence disclosed by the State after the discovery deadline, concluding that the delay was not due to bad faith and that Hanson was not unduly prejudiced by the late disclosure. Hanson was subsequently found guilty on both counts and sentenced to imprisonment.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court held that the traffic stop and subsequent search were lawful, as the officer’s questioning and request to search were reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found that Hanson’s consent to the search was voluntary, considering the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanson’s motion to suppress the late-disclosed evidence, as the delay was not intentional and did not unduly prejudice Hanson. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s rulings and Hanson’s convictions. View "Hanson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Bryant Ross Montoya was convicted of felony property destruction after he intentionally rammed his truck into another vehicle driven by Samuel Kremer. The incident stemmed from a prior altercation between the two men, who were former friends. On the day of the incident, their accounts differed, with Montoya claiming self-defense after Kremer allegedly hit his truck first, while Kremer and an independent witness, Vincent Sandberg, reported that Montoya was the aggressor.The District Court of Laramie County instructed the jury on self-defense, using instructions that addressed the use of deadly force. Montoya did not object to these instructions during the trial. The jury found Montoya guilty, and he was sentenced to a prison term of two to four years, suspended in favor of three years of probation. Montoya appealed, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury on self-defense using deadly force rather than non-deadly force.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that although the record contained the allegedly erroneous instructions, Montoya did not demonstrate material prejudice. The court noted that the State's argument focused on Montoya being the aggressor, supported by testimony from Kremer and Sandberg. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different without the alleged error in the instructions. Consequently, the court affirmed Montoya's conviction. View "Montoya v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Karl Gustke, the criminal defendant, was released on a $100,000 surety bond, for which his father, John Gustke, was jointly liable through a promissory note and indemnity agreement. Karl violated his bond conditions by consuming alcohol, removing his GPS ankle monitor, and absconding from the state. Consequently, the bond was forfeited. John Gustke petitioned to intervene in the forfeiture proceedings, seeking remission of the forfeited bond.Initially, the district court denied John's motion to intervene, but the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed this decision in a prior appeal (Gustke I), remanding the case for further proceedings. On remand, the district court allowed John to intervene and present evidence. After considering the evidence, the district court ordered $25,000 of the forfeited bond to be remitted to John, while upholding the forfeiture of the remaining $75,000. John appealed this decision.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion. The court considered factors such as the willfulness of Karl's breach, the costs and inconvenience to the government, the participation of the surety in apprehending Karl, and any mitigating factors. The court found that Karl's willful violation of bond conditions and the resulting costs and delays justified a substantial forfeiture. The district court had considered mitigating factors, including Karl's mental health and John's efforts to locate him, but found these did not fully outweigh the need for forfeiture.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the remission of $25,000 of the $100,000 bond was reasonable and supported by sufficient evidence, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. View "Gustke v. State" on Justia Law

Between October 31, 2022, and February 9, 2023, several burglaries occurred in Sheridan County, Wyoming. Surveillance videos captured a suspect wearing a beanie, facemask, and hooded sweatshirt or silver puffer jacket, often holding a flashlight and leaving distinctive footprints. By mid-February 2023, the Sheridan County Sheriff’s office identified William Corey Holliday as a suspect. A search of his residence and vehicle revealed clothing and shoes matching those seen in the videos, and stolen items from the burglaries. Holliday was charged with 20 counts of burglary, later amended to 23 counts.The District Court of Sheridan County held a six-day trial beginning November 3, 2023. Approximately 50 witnesses testified. During the trial, the prosecutor referred to the person in the surveillance videos as “the Defendant” while questioning two witnesses. Defense counsel objected to one instance, and the court sustained the objection. The prosecutor later acknowledged the inadvertent use of the term and the court issued a curative instruction to the jury, emphasizing that the identity of the person in the videos was for the jury to decide. The jury found Holliday guilty of 15 counts and not guilty of 3 counts. He was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison for each count, to be served concurrently.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Holliday argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct by vouching for the element of identity. The court held that while the prosecutor’s references were improper, they did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that the overwhelming evidence against Holliday and the district court’s curative instructions mitigated any potential prejudice. The court affirmed Holliday’s convictions. View "Holliday v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law