Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. During the trial, the district court allowed the State to introduce expert testimony involving retrograde extrapolation to prove that Defendant’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit of 0.08 percent while he was driving on the night in question. Defendant did not object to the admission of the testimony at trial. On appeal, Defendant challenged the admission of the retrograde extrapolation evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by admission of the challenged evidence. View "Young v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and obstruction of a peace officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop of his vehicle was unlawful. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the traffic stop and investigatory detention of Defendant were reasonable. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to all three charges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, as the information available to the officer at the time he made the traffic stop could give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "Jennings v. State" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-eight years to life. In 2015, Appellant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to provide a firearms disqualification advisement at the time of sentencing. The district court denied the motion, concluding (1) the advisement statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-11-507, was not applicable to Appellant’s case because the statute was not enacted until 2009; and (2) Appellant’s sentence was permitted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-104. Appellant appealed, presenting several claims in support of his contention that his sentence was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its decision to deny Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. View "Barela v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possessing small amounts of morphine and methamphetamine. The offenses were felonies due to Defendant’s prior controlled substance convictions. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of two to five years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of Defendant’s backpack; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (3) the district court properly rejected Defendant’s request for an additional instruction on constructive possession. View "Lemley v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count child endangering/obscene act. The conviction arose from Defendant’s act of exposing himself to an eleven-year-old girl and then masturbating. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the definition of the term “presence” as it is used in the charging statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-403(b)(iii), and (2) the district court improperly admitted evidence of Defendant’s prior bad acts in the form of court documents rather than testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the proposed jury instruction; but (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the court documents to show prior bad acts evidence, and Defendant was prejudiced by the admission of those exhibits. Remanded for a new trial. View "Dougherty v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Justin Sadler was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Prior to his state trial, Sadler was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm, based on the same circumstances that gave rise to his state charges. The State indicated that it would seek to admit this prior conviction under W.R.E. 609(b) if Sadler testified. The district court reserved ruling on whether Sadler’s federal conviction would be admissible, however, it observed that if Sadler denied possessing the firearm, the probative value of the prior conviction “escalates off the charts.” Sadler elected not to testify at trial. On appeal of his state charges, Sadler challenged the propriety of the district court’s comments, claiming that the court improperly chilled the exercise of his constitutional right to defend himself by testifying on his own behalf. Because he did not preserve the issue he raised on appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sadler v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Appellant Marvin Clay challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence supporting a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. The officer testified that he made the stop because the car did not have any license plates displayed. All he could see at that point was a white piece of paper in the upper left corner of the rear window, which was heavily tinted. Because he was unable to verify that the white piece of paper was a document which would allow Appellant to operate the vehicle temporarily, the officer approached the car and talked to him. He asked about the paper and if there was a bill of sale. The document in the window turned out to be a title, but more than forty-five days had elapsed since the transfer, and the officer could not tell if it was notarized, both of which were required for operation of the vehicle to be legal. Appellant said there was a bill of sale, and opened his wallet and started thumbing through it for that document, but he never pulled anything out. Appellant could not provide a driver’s license or proof of insurance either. Within the first minute of Appellant slowly flipping through his wallet, the officer observed signs of possible intoxication. A DUI Task Force officer was called, and three field sobriety tests were performed. Appellant "performed poorly" on all three. Appellant was ultimately charged, inter alia, with Driving Under the Influence, Fourth Offense. On appeal, Appellant argued that his detention was improperly expanded beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop, and that the evidence used to support the DUI arrest was discovered only after the unnecessary contact and therefore ought to have been suppressed. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Clay v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

Appellant Jeffery Lafferty was incarcerated awaiting trial for 811 days before pleading guilty to two counts of taking indecent liberties with his minor stepdaughter. After balancing the required factors, the district court concluded that the delay in bringing Lafferty to trial was reasonable and did not impair his right to a fair trial. On appeal, he argued his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. A review of the record revealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court that much of the delay was the result of appellant's own actions, "which in the aggregate caused his case to go on the circuitous journey it did." As such, the Court found no violation of appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial and affirmed his convictions. View "Lafferty v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

In 2011, Defendant was arrested for the 1972 rape and murder of Sharon Reher. After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of rape and murder but convicted of attempted rape. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to exclude results of touch DNA testing and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the touch DNA evidence was not so unreliable that it ought to be excluded from the jury’s consideration; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction and the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. View "Bean v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to three consecutive sentences of eight to sixteen years. The district court credited ninety-nine days of presentence confinement toward Defendant’s first sentence. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he should have been credited for time served against all three consecutive sentences. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while res judicata would normally apply to bar Defendant’s motion, this was an appropriate case to consider the application of presentence confinement credit to consecutive sentences; (2) when consecutive sentences are ordered, the presentence credit for time served should be applied in such a way that the defendant receives credit against the total time of incarceration; and (3) Defendant’s aggregate sentence in this case was legal. View "Palmer v. State" on Justia Law