Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony strangulation of a household member and misdemeanor false imprisonment, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by concluding that the affidavit in support of the search warrant to search Defendant's cellular phones, his place of employment, his work truck, and his person for certain documents, including journals, established probable cause to search and seize Defendant's journals and in thus denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) did not abuse its discretion at sentencing by considering conduct for which Defendant was acquitted. View "Kreusel v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's most recent motion to correct an illegal sentence on the ground that he was entitled to credit against both of his consecutive sentences, holding that the district court did not err.After the district court denied Defendant's first two motions to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a), Defendant filed a third motion pursuant to Rule 35(a) asking the district court to award him credit for 426 days of presentence confinement. The district court denied the request, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata had preclusive effect in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while Defendant's appeal could be barred by res judicata this Court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of the appeal; and (2) Defendant was entitled to receive 426 days of presentence confinement, and because Defendant received that credit against his total term of imprisonment, his sentence was legal. View "Cruzen v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-315(a)(ii) and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-316(a)(iv). On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting only his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, arguing there was insufficient evidence of intent to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. View "Morris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court reducing Joshua Anderle's sentence for sexual abuse of a minor by two years following his completion of the Youthful Offender Transition Program, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Anderle's sentence by two years in recognition of his successful completion of the program.Anderle entered an Alford plea to second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. The district court sentenced him to eight to twelve years' imprisonment and recommended that the Wyoming Department of Corrections treat Anderle as a youthful offender under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-1001 et seq. After Anderle successfully completed the program the court held a sentence reduction hearing and reduced Anderle's sentence by two years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court reasonably declined to reduce Anderle's sentence to probation. View "Anderle v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated assault for attempting to cause harm to others after he led law enforcement on a high-speed chase and nearly collided with with a patrol car occupied by a law enforcement officer, holding that the record was unclear as to the state of Defendant's second aggravated assault conviction.At issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion when it instructed the jury that attempted aggravated assault under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-502(a)(i) could be committed knowingly. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the legislature did not intend to create a general intent attempt crime when it defined attempted aggravated assault; and (2) a jury instruction and verdict form did not provide the "jury a correct and legally sufficient basis" upon which to convict Defendant. The Court remanded the case for clarification and resentencing, if necessary. View "Schuerman v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions for sexual abuse, holding that the failure of the instructions in this case to provide the specific direction necessary for a unanimous decision on each charge violated the unequivocal requirement of jury unanimity, and the error was prejudicial.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor (Counts I, II, and III) and one count of attempted second-degree sexual abuse of a minor (Count VI). On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury instructions, which contained identical language for the basis of conviction on Counts I through V, were insufficient to direct the jury to a unanimous verdict on each count. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's convictions and Counts II and III, holding that the district court's failure to properly instruct the jury violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law that adversely affected Defendant's substantial rights. View "Walker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder after denying his motion to suppress, holding that the district court erred in determining when Defendant's interrogation became custodial, and that error required reversal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred in ruling that Defendant was not in custody during his police station interview until he was directed to remain in an interview room; (2) it was not harmless error to admit incriminating statements Defendant made after his interrogation became custodial; and (3) the record supported the district court's conclusion that Defendant's confession was voluntary. View "Mills v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault and battery for shooting a man at a campground, holding that the district court erred when it refused to give Defendant's proposed "castle doctrine" instructions.Defendant was charged with aggravated assault and battery in violation of Wyo. Stat. 6-2-502. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing that he had acted in self-defense and was immune from prosecution under the "castle doctrine." See Wyo. Stat. 6-2-602(f). The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and a jury convicted Defendant of aggravated assault and battery. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court erred when it refused to give his proposed castle doctrine instructions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant presented competent evidence to create factual issues about whether his vehicle was adapted for overnight accommodation and fit within the definition of "habitation" and whether the victim was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering that habitation when he was shot; and (2) because the district court did not allow these factual questions be resolved by the jury, a new trial was required. View "Howitt v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of felony child endangerment and one count of misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine, holding that the prosecutor's comments during opening and closing statements were not prejudicial to Defendant.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of felony child endangerment and one count of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced Defendant to three to five years in prison for the endangerment counts, to run concurrently with each other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that two almost identical statements made by the prosecutor before trial denied Defendant a substantial right or materially prejudiced his case. View "Lott v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony property destruction and defacement, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during his rebuttal argument.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony property destruction and defacement. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that a statement made during the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument amounted to misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the conviction; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct during rebuttal closing argument. View "Ogden v. State" on Justia Law