Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Police officers in Casper, Wyoming stopped a woman driving with her infant child and an adult passenger, believing the vehicle’s cracked windshield violated traffic laws and suspecting the passenger had active warrants. After arresting the passenger and searching the vehicle with the driver’s consent, officers discovered suspected methamphetamine in the driver’s backpack. The driver admitted to recent drug use and consented to a search of her apartment, where more methamphetamine was found. She was charged with felony child endangerment and misdemeanor possession, accused of allowing her child to remain in places where she knew methamphetamine was present.The driver filed a motion in the District Court of Natrona County to suppress evidence from the vehicle and apartment searches, arguing the traffic stop was unjustified and her consent and statements were involuntary. The district court denied the motion, finding the stop was lawful, Miranda warnings were not required, and her statements were voluntary. She then entered a conditional guilty plea to child endangerment, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to probation under a plea agreement. The misdemeanor possession charge was dismissed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the validity of the conditional guilty plea under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2). The Court found that while the plea satisfied the requirements for written reservation, State consent, and district court approval, it failed because not all issues reserved for appeal were dispositive. Only the challenge to the legality of the initial stop would end the case if resolved in appellant’s favor, while the other issues would not. The Supreme Court of Wyoming held the conditional plea was invalid and vacated the judgment and sentence, remanding for further proceedings. View "Stone v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Dixon Dean Cole was originally charged in 1996 with multiple counts of sexual assault and immoral or indecent acts with minors. Through a plea agreement, he pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree (a misdemeanor) and one count of immoral or indecent acts with a minor (a felony). He received suspended sentences and probation, and after fulfilling all court-ordered requirements, he was discharged from probation in 2001. Both convictions required him to register as a sex offender due to the ages of the victims.Years later, Cole was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. While those charges were pending, he sought expungement of both convictions and requested to be relieved of his registration duty. The District Court of Sweetwater County expunged his misdemeanor conviction (applying the felony expungement statute in error) and terminated his duty to register for the felony conviction. The State objected, arguing Cole was statutorily ineligible for expungement due to his registration status.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that although the district court used the incorrect statute for the misdemeanor expungement, Cole was otherwise eligible under the proper statute, and the results would have been the same. The Court declined to consider arguments about whether Cole posed a danger to society, as these were not properly raised in the district court. Regarding the termination of the sex offender registration requirement, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion, noting Cole met all statutory prerequisites and that a pending failure-to-register charge did not automatically bar relief.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed both the expungement of the misdemeanor conviction and the order terminating Cole’s duty to register as a sex offender. View "State v. Cole" on Justia Law

The case concerns an altercation in Sheridan, Wyoming, during which Cody McCalla and his friend encountered Patrick Mudd and Mudd's girlfriend over a parking dispute. After a verbal confrontation, McCalla and his friend moved their vehicle and proceeded toward the fairgrounds. Mudd stood on the sidewalk, and a second confrontation ensued between McCalla and Mudd, escalating into physical violence. After several exchanges, McCalla ultimately punched Mudd, causing him to fall, hit his head, and later die from his injuries. McCalla was charged with involuntary manslaughter.The District Court of Sheridan County reviewed several pretrial motions. McCalla moved to compel production of unredacted law enforcement reports, which the district court denied, finding the redacted portions exempt from disclosure under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. McCalla also moved to dismiss the charge, claiming immunity from prosecution under Wyoming Statute § 6-2-602(f) on grounds of self-defense. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, requiring McCalla to proceed first, as his motion alone did not establish a prima facie case. After testimony, the district court found McCalla met his prima facie burden, but the State proved by a preponderance of evidence that McCalla was the initial aggressor in the second altercation and did not use reasonable defensive force, denying immunity.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the appeal. It held the district court did not err in requiring McCalla to proceed first at the evidentiary hearing, found no error in the district court’s determination that McCalla was the initial aggressor and thus not entitled to self-defense immunity under Wyoming Statute § 6-2-602(f), and declined to address the discovery issue, as it was not properly preserved for appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings. View "Mccalla v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case, a business owner discovered that his yard’s fence had been cut, a lock removed, and a distinctive skid steer tractor missing. Months later, a law enforcement officer familiar with the stolen tractor observed a similar machine at the defendant’s scrapyard. Upon inspection, the tractor showed signs of tampering, including a removed serial number plate, a recently spray-painted exterior, and a matching hidden serial number. The defendant initially claimed the tractor had been inherited from his late uncle and had always been black, but he later argued at trial that it was purchased from another individual named Franco, and that he had confused two similar tractors.The defendant was charged with felony theft in the District Court of Uinta County. At trial, he sought to introduce a document purporting to be a bill of sale for the tractor through a witness, Kyle Hartley, who testified to seeing the transaction occur. However, Hartley’s description of the document did not match the document offered—specifically, he recalled both parties signing, but the document lacked the defendant’s signature. The district court ruled that foundation for the document had not been established and excluded it unless further authentication was provided. As a result, the defendant testified solely to lay the foundation, and the document was admitted. The jury convicted the defendant, and he was sentenced to prison.On appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in requiring additional foundation for the bill of sale, effectively forcing him to testify. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as the witness’s testimony did not sufficiently authenticate the document due to discrepancies. The conviction and judgment were affirmed. View "Titmus v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Police investigating a sexual assault executed a search warrant at a mobile home occupied by three individuals, including the appellant. During the search of one resident’s bedroom, officers found a glass pipe believed to contain methamphetamine residue. The appellant and his mother, who also lived in the home, denied the presence of drugs when questioned. Based on the discovery, law enforcement obtained a second warrant to search the entire residence for controlled substances. This second search led to the discovery of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in a bench located in the appellant’s bedroom, resulting in his arrest and charge for felony possession.The District Court of Campbell County presided over the criminal case. The appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer’s affidavit for the second search warrant omitted material facts, such as the pipe being found in a locked bedroom accessible only to one resident, and that these omissions undermined probable cause. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding that the omitted facts would not have defeated probable cause, as the resident in whose room the pipe was found could access the entirety of the home, including the appellant’s bedroom. The appellant then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.Reviewing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that even if the omitted facts had been included in the affidavit, probable cause existed to search the entire mobile home because the resident implicated by the initial pipe discovery had access throughout the home. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and the conviction was affirmed. View "Urrutia v. State" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was charged with felony interference with a peace officer and, after pleading guilty, was placed on supervised probation with a suspended prison sentence. Over the next few years, the defendant’s probation was twice revoked and reinstated, with the court imposing varying conditions in response to admitted violations, including substance use and other misconduct. After the defendant was given additional chances, including substance abuse treatment and a split sentence, the State eventually filed a third petition to revoke probation, alleging further violations such as drug use, failure to attend probation meetings, and inadequate progress in treatment.Following the third petition, the District Court of Goshen County held an adjudicatory hearing to determine whether the defendant violated probation terms. Both parties presented evidence and argument on the alleged violations. After the hearing, the district court found that the violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence and that the defendant’s actions were willful. The court then immediately revoked probation and imposed the previously suspended prison sentence, without conducting a separate dispositional phase or allowing the defendant to present mitigation.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case under the plain error standard because the defendant did not object during the proceedings. The court held that, although Wyoming law does not require separate hearings for adjudication and disposition in probation revocation matters, both phases must be conducted with appropriate opportunity for mitigation and consideration of willfulness. The district court erred by failing to conduct the dispositional phase, denying the defendant procedural rights and undermining the fairness of the proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded for a proper disposition hearing in accordance with Wyoming law. View "Velasquez v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In 1979, the appellant and his brother took a truck in Laramie, Wyoming, and drove it to Casper. The appellant pled guilty to felony Unauthorized Use of Automobile. The district court sentenced him, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation. It further ordered that upon successful completion of one year of probation, he could withdraw his guilty plea and have the matter dismissed. After completing probation, the appellant was discharged, his guilty plea was withdrawn, and the case was dismissed. Despite this, the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation maintained records incorrectly indicating he was a convicted felon.In 2025, the appellant petitioned the District Court of Albany County to expunge his records under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502, which provides for expungement of felony convictions. The State did not oppose the petition. The district court denied the request, reasoning that the appellant’s case was resolved through a deferred prosecution process—specifically, the withdrawal of the guilty plea and dismissal after probation—under statutes governing deferred dispositions. It concluded that, as there was no felony conviction, there was no conviction to expunge. The appellant’s motion to reconsider was also denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and applied a de novo standard to statutory interpretation. It held that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-13-1502 unambiguously limits expungement eligibility to persons convicted of felonies. The court determined that a deferred prosecution resulting in annulment or withdrawal of a guilty plea and dismissal does not constitute a conviction. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for expungement under this statute. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the expungement petition. View "Lynch v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of witness intimidation under Wyoming law, based on statements made during a supervised visit with his two daughters and a subsequent Facebook post. The daughters, aged 14 and 11, were residing at a youth home and scheduled to testify at an upcoming Child in Need of Supervision (CHINS) hearing. During the visit, the defendant made comments such as threatening to take away a tablet if one daughter refused to visit, and asked how the girls would feel if he took their kids away. He also referenced his right to bear arms and posted a Facebook rant containing generically threatening statements. Witnesses at the youth home perceived some of the remarks as threatening, but the daughters themselves did not clearly connect the comments to their upcoming court appearance.The District Court of Uinta County presided over the criminal trial. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts of witness intimidation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-305(a), and the judge sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of four to eight years. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that his statements did not constitute actionable threats intended to influence or intimidate the witnesses in relation to their duty to testify.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Applying the standard that witness intimidation under the statute is a specific intent crime, the court determined that the evidence did not establish that the defendant’s statements were intended to influence, intimidate, or impede his daughters in their roles as witnesses. The court found no nexus between the alleged threats and the daughters’ participation in the CHINS hearing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and reversed both counts. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

Blake Brewer was arrested after stealing a sound system and monitor from a Walmart in Gillette, Wyoming, resulting in a loss of $1,887. At the time, Brewer was on parole for a prior fraud-by-check conviction. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to felony theft in exchange for a recommended sentence of 18 to 36 months and agreed to pay restitution. The plea agreement did not specify whether the new sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any sentence that might be reinstated following a pending parole revocation for his earlier conviction.The District Court of Campbell County accepted Brewer’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended sentence. During the oral pronouncement, the court was silent regarding whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any reinstated sentence for the prior offense. In its written judgment, however, the court ordered Brewer’s sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence. After a motion from the State, the court issued an order nunc pro tunc to correct the sentence’s duration but retained the consecutive language. Brewer appealed, arguing that the written judgment imposed an illegal sentence because the oral pronouncement did not specify consecutive sentencing and the written order referenced a sentence not yet reinstated by the parole board.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo, applying its precedent from Keefe v. State, 2024 WY 93, 555 P.3d 492 (Wyo. 2024). The court held that when a sentencing court is silent on whether a sentence runs concurrently or consecutively, Wyoming law presumes the sentences run consecutively. The written judgment merely confirmed this presumption. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Brewer’s sentence was not illegal. View "Brewer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law