Articles Posted in Wyoming Supreme Court

by
The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of possession of methamphetamine, holding that Defendant's right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48 was violated when the State failed to bring him to trial within 180 days following his arraignment. On appeal, Defendant argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the methamphetamine found in a container inside his truck. The Supreme Court reversed on the speedy trial issue and thus did not address the motion to suppress, holding that Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated when his trial commenced 194 days after his arraignment. View "Osban v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for dismissal of the charges against him as a sanction for the State's late discovery, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion by imposing other sanctions against the State. The State charged Defendant with two counts of aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon. More than four months before trial, Defendant demanded from the State any recorded statements he or any witnesses had made. The State had access to the statements at the time of Defendant's request but did not disclose them until three days prior to trial. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice as a sanction for the State's violation of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 16. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the state did not act in bad faith when it violated the discovery rules and that Defendant was not prejudiced by the error. Defendant was subsequently convicted of both counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss because the court's decision to offer a one-week continuance as a remedy for the violation of discovery rules, along with stipulated exclusion of evidence, was an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. View "Requejo v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop, asserting that the stop's "air of pretext" should cause the Court to reevaluate whether a dog sniff to the exterior of a vehicle require "a righter legal framework" under the Wyoming Constitution than the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to present cogent argument under the Wyoming Constitution on appeal. View "Gibson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of four counts of third-degree sexual assault related to his abuse of three minors, holding that the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings were without error. Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photos and videos pursuant to Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's objection to the admission of a vibrator based on the State's failure to list the exhibit in its pretrial disclosure; and (3) Defendant's failure to timely object to evidence on the basis of foundation precluded appellate review of that claim. View "Mayhew v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony possession of marijuana and possession with intent to deliver, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search; (2) the district court did not commit reversible error in permitting the introduction of improper rebuttal evidence; (3) the prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct through the use of improper evidence and argument; and (4) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of certain rebuttal testimony and the State's alleged improper statements during closing arguments. View "Dixon v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's drug-related convictions, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence or his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and that sufficient evidence supported Defendant's conviction of felony possession of methamphetamine in a liquid form, as contemplated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1031. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's motion to suppress, which challenged the validity of the search warrant, was properly denied; (2) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Rule 48 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (3) sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding the jury's finding that the liquid contained in Defendant's water pipe, which tested positive for methamphetamine, constituted "a controlled substance in liquid form" under the plain language of section 35-7-1031(c)(i)(B). View "Mathewson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of mutilation of dead human bodies, holding that the State did not breach the plea agreement when it recommended the agreed-upon sentence but made negative comments about Defendant's conduct. Defendant pleaded no contest to the crimes for which he was convicted as part of a plea agreement. The district court accepted the pleas but rejected the agreement's joint sentencing recommendation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State violated the plea agreement by commenting on the evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the State did not breach its plea agreement with Defendant by commenting on the evidence. View "Montano v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder, holding that the district court did not commit prejudicial error during the proceedings below and that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury, or where it did err, the error was not prejudicial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony that the victim made previous statements indicating that he wanted to get into a fight; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by suggesting that Defendant had the burden of proof on certain issues relating to his self-defense claim, but Defendant failed to show material prejudice; and (4) the district court correctly found that Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Farrow v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s two motions for a new trial, holding that Defendant did not provide the district court with “newly discovered evidence,” and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motions. Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, unlawful entry, and misdemeanor theft, among other offenses. Defendant filed two pro se motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The district court denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claims that certain evidence was newly discovered were without merit. View "Dockter v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one count of third-degree sexual assault, holding that Defendant was not denied her right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or under Wyo. Const. art. I, 6,7, and 36. On appeal, Defendant argued, inter alia, that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-304(a)(iii) and 6-2-303(a)(vii) were facially invalid because they were facially overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutes at issue are not facially overbroad in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) the statutes at issue are not overly broad in violation of Wyo. Const. art. I, 6, 7, and 36. View "Sheesley v. State" on Justia Law