Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court revoking Defendant's probation and imposing sentence, holding that the district court had authority to revoke Defendant's probation and did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Defendant's probation.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court lacked the authority to revoke his probation because the probation violation did not occur during the probationary period, as required by Wyo. Stat. 7-13-305(c) and, even if the court had the authority, it abused its discretion because there was no evidence supporting a finding that Defendant violated the probation condition willfully. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the phrase "probation period" encompasses the time during which a sentence is suspended and the time during which probation is being served; and (2) the district court could reasonably infer from the facts that Defendant willfully violated the term of his probation. View "Sena v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of stalking, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 62-506(b) and (e)(I), holding that Defendant's First Amendment right to free speech was not violated when he was prosecuted for writing absence letters to the victim.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's right to free speech under the First Amendment was not violated when the State prosecuted him under section 6-2-506 for sending obscene letters to the victim, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the letters were obscene under the ordinary meaning of that term; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury or by refusing Defendant's request for a special verdict form; (3) the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant harassed the victim; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Defendant had been warned not to send unsolicited letters. View "Dugan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of one count of felony theft, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the court's order contained sufficient finding of a common scheme.Defendant renovated a home and used the materials separately purchased by homeowners as a reduction to his bid price. Defendant later took the materials to a retailer and, in two separate transactions, returned them for more than $1000. The district court convicted Defendant of one count of felony theft. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he intentionally stole the materials and that the district court erred when it failed explicitly to find that the items were stolen pursuant to a "common scheme or the same transaction" under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-3-410 when it aggregated the value of the stolen property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (2) the district court made the necessary finding of a common scheme, and its finding was not clearly erroneous. View "Gore v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's aggregate sentence that left him eligible for parole after serving thirty-five years, holding that Defendant failed to show a constitutional violation or an abuse of discretion in the district court's sentencing decision.Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and twelve counts of aggravated assault and battery for crimes he committed at age sixteen. The district court sentenced Defendant to an aggregate prison term that left him eligible for parole after fifty-two years. The Supreme Court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because it was a de facto life without parole sentence. On remand, the district court imposed an aggregate sentence that left Defendant eligible for parole after serving thirty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. View "Sam v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual assault in the third degree and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it admitted hearsay testimony of five witnesses and a video recording of the victim's Children Advocacy Project (CAP). Defendant also argued that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to convict him of the offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither the admission of the challenged testimony nor the CAP interview video violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way, and in any event, Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that he was materially prejudiced by admission of the evidence; and (2) the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict Defendant of both sexual assault in the third degree and intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motions to withdraw his no contest plea to driving under the influence of alcohol, holding that Defendant's no contest plea was not knowing or voluntary, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motions to withdraw his plea.On appeal, Defendant argued that his plea was not knowing or voluntary because the totality of the circumstances showed he did not fully understand the amended charge, the plea agreement, or the consequences of his plea. Further, Defendant claimed that he had insufficient time to speak with his attorney to discuss these matters prior to pleading guilty. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) under the specific circumstances of this case, Defendant's plea was not knowing or voluntary; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in not allowing Defendant to withdraw his no contest plea. View "Steffey v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of strangulation of a household member, holding that the district court did not err in admitting certain testimony and that the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of strangulation.Defendant was convicted of strangulation and domestic battery for an incident in which Defendant's wife was found badly beaten. Defendant appealed only his strangulation conviction, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of his wife's treatment physician for the truth of the matter asserted after ruling that the testimony would be admitted only for impeachment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) assuming that the district court's statement limiting the physician's testimony was in fact a ruling, Defendant failed to establish that the admission was prejudicial; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Defendant caused bodily injury by impeding his wife's normal circulation of blood. View "Gonzalez-Chavarria v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that cumulative error resulting from prosecutorial misconduct deprived Defendant of a fair trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutors committed numerous instances of misconduct during the state's case-in-chief and during the State's closing and rebuttal arguments. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the prosecutor violated the district court's Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b) order; (2) both prosecutors engaged in improper victim impact argument unrelated to credibility; (3) the prosecutor repeatedly argued facts that were not in evidence; (4) the prosecutor intentionally used inflammatory language in closing argument; and (5) cumulative error deprived Defendant of a fair trial. View "Bogard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of three counts of child endangerment and one count of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent by admitting testimony regarding Defendant's contamination of a compelled urine sample.On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence of her contamination of the urine sample was admitted in violation of her right to remain silence because the contamination communicated her guilty knowledge or consciousness of guilt. The State raised the additional question of whether Defendant waived her Fifth Amendment claim when she failed to raise it in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had good cause for failing to raise her Fifth Amendment claim before trial so the claim was not waived; and (2) Defendant's decision to contaminate her sample was neither a communicative act nor an act compelled by the State, and therefore, evidence of Defendant's actions was not protected by the Fifth Amendment, and there was no plain error in the admission of the evidence. View "Herrera v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the University of Wyoming (UW) and dismissing Plaintiff's declaratory judgment action, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that this declaratory judgment action challenging the legality of a UW regulation barring firearms on the UW campus served a useful purpose.Plaintiff was cited for misdemeanor criminal trespass after he refused to either relinquish his handgun, which he brought to a UW facility. Plaintiff pleaded not guilty in circuit court, obtained a stay of the criminal proceedings, and filed an action for declaratory judgment in district court, arguing that the regulation violated his constitutional right to bear arms. The district court granted summary judgment for UW. The Supreme Court reversed with instructions so that the matter may proceed in the circuit court, holding (1) Defendant had standing the challenge the legality of the regulation because of the pending criminal charge against him; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in concluding that this declaratory judgment action served a useful purpose. View "Williams v. State ex rel., University of Wyoming Board of Trustees" on Justia Law