Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, and incest, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the victim competent to testify as a witness and that Defendant was not denied his constitutional right to confront a witness against him.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in finding the victim competent to testify and that, due to her incompetency, as well as her behavior at trial, he was denied his right to confront her as a witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the victim competent to testify; (2) Defendant was not denied his right to effectively cross-examine the victim; and (3) any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Tamblyn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree and attempted murder in the first degree, holding that Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial or his right to a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not denied his statutory or constitutional right to a speedy trial; (2) Defendant failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel; and (3) Defendant failed to establish that he was denied his constitutional right to due process of law or a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. View "Fairbourn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on three counts of second-degree attempted murder, thirteen counts of aggravated assault and battery, and one count of interference with a peace officer, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court’s finding of no discriminatory purpose in the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges was not clearly erroneous; (2) Defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated when the district court refused to individually query jurors about their exposure to pretrial publicity; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s pretrial motion for a continuance; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (5) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel; and (6) because there was no error, cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "Pickering v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and four counts of delivery of a controlled substance based on transactions with a confidential informant, holding the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Defendant's entrapment theory of defense.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence created a fact issue on the questions of inducement and predisposition. The Supreme Court held (1) the evidence created a fact issue for the jury on the question of government inducement; (2) the evidence created a factual dispute concerning Defendant's predisposition to commit the crimes at issue; and (3) therefore, the defense of entrapment was in play and was a question on which the jury should have been instructed. View "Black v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault, holding that Defendant was not prejudiced by any alleged error in the jury instruction for rape and that the State had no duty under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), to conduct a forensic examination of the complainant's cell phone before trial.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that (1) the district court had not erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of rape, and (2) the State did not commit a Brady violation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to the jury instruction on the elements of rape, and, going forward, this Court endorses the use of Model Utah Jury Instruction 1605 for rape; and (2) the State did not violate Brady when it did not complete a forensic examination of the complainant's cell phone. View "State v. Newton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant parked his car in a parking lot and was on his way into a bar when Officer Andy Lucus approached him and asked if they could talk. Defendant agreed. While they were talking, two other officers arrived at the scene. Officer Lucus asked if Defendant had proof of insurance. When Defendant could not locate his proof of insurance Officer Lucus wrote a "no insurance" citation. In the meantime, the other officers retrieved a K-9 named Lord to perform a free-air sniff of Defendant's vehicle. After Lord alerted to the smell of drugs Officer Lucus searched the vehicle and found methaphetamine. On appeal, Defendant conceded that his encounter with Officer Lucus began as consensual but asserted that the encounter changed to an unlawful investigatory detention when Officer Lucus requested proof of insurance. The Supreme Court affirmed without deciding the issue, holding that Lord's free-air sniff was lawful whether Defendant was free to leave or not. View "Kern v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for child abuse and lawful entry into an occupied structure, holding that Defendant waived his claim that the charge of unlawful entry did not state a criminal offense by pleading no contest to the charge.Defendant pleaded no contest to child abuse and unlawful entry after he entered the home where his estranged wife and teenage son were residing and hit the son with a wooden shovel handle. On appeal, Defendant argued that his unlawful entry must be overturned because it did not state a criminal offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived his challenge to the unlawful entry count when he pleaded no contest to the charge. View "Dahl v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the 1992 sentence imposed on Defendant for crimes Defendant committed when he was fifteen years old, holding that Defendant's sentence was not a de facto life sentence entitling him to an individualized sentencing hearing under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).In 1992, Defendant was sentenced to three life sentences and one twenty-year to life sentence, all running concurrently, and one eighteen- to twenty-year sentence running consecutively to the other sentences. Here, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming it was illegal in violation of Miller, Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132 (Wyo. 2014), and their progeny. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's 1992 sentence was not the functional equivalent of life in prison and that Defendant was not entitled to an individualized sentencing hearing under Miller. View "Wiley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's case against him, holding that the district court applied the incorrect burden and standard when adjudicating Defendant's motion to dismiss, but the error was harmless.Defendant was charged with one count of first degree murder. The district court dismissed the case under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-602(f), which the legislature had recently added to the self-defense statutes. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for writ of review to address matters of first impression regarding the statute's meaning and application. The Supreme Court held (1) section 6-2-602(f) is a mandatory immunity provision carrying with it a judicial gatekeeping function after the preliminary hearing; (2) the accused must present a prima facie showing that section 6-2-602(f) applies, and if the accused satisfies this minimal burden, the burden shifts to the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that section 6-2-602(f) does not apply; and (3) while the district court applied a different burden and standard when it adjudicated Defendant's motion to dismiss, its error was harmless. View "State v. John" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court imposing the maximum sentence of four and one-half to five years in connection with Defendant's plea of guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, holding that Defendant's failure to comply with the bond conditions contained in the plea agreement released the State from its obligation to recommend a reduced sentence.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State where, in exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to recommend a two-to three-year sentence, suspended in favor of two years of probation. The agreement incorporated Defendant's bond conditions requiring that he not be arrested or cited for a violation of the law. Before he was sentenced, Defendant received two citations for criminal trespass and one for false reporting. At sentencing, the State recommended that Defendant be sentenced to four to five years in prison. After he was sentenced, Defendant appealed, arguing that the State breached the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's breach of the plea agreement released the State from its obligation to recommend a reduced sentence. View "Springstead v. State" on Justia Law