Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Wesley de Sousa Soares, a Brazilian national and professional jiu jitsu fighter, was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault. The charges stemmed from an encounter with a woman, KB, whom he met through an online dating application. KB alleged that Soares sexually assaulted her multiple times at her residence until she managed to escape. Soares, however, claimed that KB had consented to their sexual encounter. While in custody, Soares made phone calls in Portuguese, which were recorded and later translated. These recordings were admitted as evidence during the trial.The District Court of Albany County convicted Soares on three of the four counts. Soares appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the audio recordings without an accompanying English transcription. He also claimed that the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination and closing arguments, and that the court committed structural error by providing the jury with equipment to listen to the audio exhibits.The Supreme Court of Wyoming disagreed with Soares' arguments. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's admission of the audio exhibits without an English transcription. It also found no prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination or closing arguments. Lastly, the court acknowledged that the trial court erred in providing the jury with equipment to listen to the audio exhibits without first screening the recordings, but it ruled that this error was not structural and that Soares had waived this claim by failing to object. Consequently, the court affirmed Soares' conviction. View "Soares v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this appeal, John Gustke (Father) contests a decision by the District Court of Natrona County, Wyoming, which partially denied several motions to set aside the forfeiture of a $100,000 surety bond. The bond was linked to a criminal case involving Father's son, Karl Gustke (Criminal Defendant), who violated his bond conditions and absconded from the state. Father was jointly liable for the bond through a promissory note and indemnity agreement with the surety and surety's insurer. The District Court also denied Father's motion to intervene in the case as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.), without giving notice to Father.The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that the District Court had erred by not providing Father with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his motion to intervene. The court reversed the District Court's order denying Father's motion to intervene and remanded the case for a properly noticed hearing and for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court did not reach a decision on the remission of the bond, stating that it would be premature given the District Court's error. View "Gustke v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the appellant, Benjamin David Wilson, was charged with second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, following allegations involving his stepdaughter, K.P. The jury acquitted him of the second-degree charge but found him guilty of the third-degree charge. Wilson appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction on the third-degree charge.The facts presented to the court included K.P.'s testimony that Wilson had inappropriately touched her during a family event. Wilson denied the allegations, providing an alternative account of the incident. Despite this, the jury found him guilty of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, leading to a sentence of 10 to 15 years in prison.In response to Wilson's appeal, the court affirmed the conviction. It stated that the jury's acquittal on one charge did not necessarily impact the verdict on the other charge. The court indicated that each charge was treated as a separate indictment, and verdicts on multiple charges did not need to be consistent. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, affirming Wilson's conviction based on K.P.'s testimony. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming heard an appeal by Rodger William Dillard, who contested the termination of his parental rights to his three minor children. Dillard had initially adopted his grandchildren after their biological parents' rights were terminated. After Dillard's wife, who had custody of the children, passed away, allegations of sexual abuse were made against Dillard by two of the children. Dillard was then charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor.The Department of Family Services initially aimed to reunify the children with Dillard. However, after more than a year in the Department's custody, the plan was changed to adoption due to Dillard's lack of progress in meeting the requirements of his Family Service Case Plan. Dillard was eventually sentenced to concurrent sentences of three to five years for two counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Following this, the Department filed a petition to terminate Dillard's parental rights.The district court found that termination was in the best interest of the children, as Dillard was unfit to meet their ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs. Dillard appealed this decision, arguing that the Department had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children.However, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Dillard's parental rights. The Court held that Dillard's incarceration due to his felony convictions for sexual abuse of a minor demonstrated his unfitness to have custody and control of the children. The Court therefore affirmed the termination of Dillard's parental rights under the provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), which allows for termination of parental rights if the parent is incarcerated due to a felony conviction and is shown to be unfit for custody and control of the child. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights To: Mmd, Jid and Drd v. State, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

In the State of Wyoming, Jonathon Tyson Blair, representing himself, appealed the denial of his motion for sentence reduction by the District Court of Sweetwater County. Blair had been sentenced to a term of eight to ten years and requested a reduction to a term of five to ten years. He argued that he had taken steps to improve himself while incarcerated and that he needed the sentence reduction to prevent his welding certification from expiring, so he could financially support his family upon release.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the decision of the lower court, stating that the denial of the motion for sentence reduction did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that the sentencing judge is in the best position to determine if a sentence modification is appropriate and can accept or reject information submitted in support of a sentence reduction at their discretion. The court found that there was a rational basis from which the lower court could draw its conclusion and that the original sentence imposed on Blair remained appropriate. The court also dismissed Blair's allegations of bias and illegal sentencing, stating that these issues were not raised in his motion for sentence reduction and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the court discarded Blair's claim that his pre-sentencing time served was not credited to his sentence, stating that this was a matter for relief under a different rule and that the issue had already been addressed and rejected in prior proceedings. View "Blair v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Daniel A. Chace, who appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant executed after 10:00 p.m. The incident began when law enforcement stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, driven by Mr. Chace’s brother. A search of the vehicle following a K-9 unit’s drug alert resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. That evening, the officers requested a search warrant for the driver's residence, where Mr. Chace was temporarily staying. The search warrant was executed shortly after 10:00 p.m., leading to the discovery of more drugs and paraphernalia in Mr. Chace's backpack.Mr. Chace argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the search of the residence violated Rule 41 of Wyoming's Rules of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the execution of search warrants to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., unless express authorization for a different time is provided based on good cause. The Supreme Court of Wyoming, however, affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the nighttime search did not prejudice Mr. Chace and that law enforcement did not intentionally and deliberately disregard the limits in Rule 41(e)(1). The court maintained that a violation of Rule 41 alone does not necessarily equate to a Fourth Amendment violation and does not always invoke the application of the exclusionary rule. View "Chace v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Wyoming upheld the conviction of Charles Anthony "Tony" Santistevan for multiple counts of sexual assault and one count of voyeurism. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the state to introduce evidence that Santistevan's sexual relationship with the victim, R.S., began when she was a minor. This evidence was introduced under the Wyoming Rules of Evidence (W.R.E.) 404(b), which allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for certain purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Santistevan argued that the introduction of this evidence was an abuse of the district court's discretion, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the evidence was relevant and admissible under W.R.E. 404(b) to show an ongoing scheme or plan and to demonstrate Santistevan's course of conduct, and to provide a complete story to the jury about the relationship between Santistevan and R.S., thereby aiding in determining the issue of consent in the sexual assault charges. View "Charles A. Santistevan v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case, Shaun T. Kobielusz appealed his convictions of three counts of voyeurism. Kobielusz contended that there was insufficient evidence of the element of “looking” for the jury to convict him of voyeurism, that the jury instruction given on the elements of voyeurism was improper, and that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress videos on a memory card given to law enforcement by his wife. The Supreme Court of Wyoming disagreed with Kobielusz's claims. They determined that the voyeurism statute does not require proof of “looking” at the captured images for a conviction. They also found that the jury instruction did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Lastly, they affirmed the district court's decision to deny Kobielusz's motion to suppress the videos, concluding that his wife had common authority over the memory cards and had the right to consent to their search. Therefore, the court affirmed Kobielusz's conviction. View "Kobielusz v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Leopoldo Alvarado, who sought to terminate his duty to register as a sex offender after having registered for at least ten years, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-304 of the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act. The District Court denied his petition on the grounds that the time he spent on probation did not count toward the ten-year statutory prerequisite.However, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming disagreed and reversed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court found that the clear and unambiguous language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-304 does not require probation to be completed before the ten-year registration period begins to run. The court ruled that probation is not listed as a tolling event, and the court will not read words into a statute when the legislature has chosen not to include them.The Supreme Court stated that the District Court should have considered whether Mr. Alvarado should be relieved of the duty to continue registration after demonstrating he had maintained a clean record by meeting all four conditions during the ten-year registration period. These conditions included having no conviction of any offense for which imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed, having no conviction of any sex offense, successfully completing any periods of supervised release, probation, and parole, and successfully completing any sex offender treatment previously ordered by the trial court or his probation or parole agent. The case was remanded for further consideration. View "Alvarado v. State" on Justia Law

In Wyoming, Remi Larsen was facing a misdemeanor charge for possession of a controlled substance. Larsen moved to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her apartment. The trial court granted Larsen's motion, ruling that she did not voluntarily consent to the search. The State appealed this decision, resulting in the district court reversing the trial court's order. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court abused its discretion when it initially granted the State's petition for an interlocutory writ of review. The Supreme Court explained that the district court should only grant such a review in "rare and unusual" cases that present questions of first impression, constitutional magnitude, and great public import. The court found that Larsen's case did not meet these criteria. The court's order was reversed, and the lower court was directed to reinstate the original suppression order. View "Larsen v. State" on Justia Law