Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Kenya H. Bindner, who was convicted of possession of marijuana and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The authorities executed a search warrant at Bindner's residence, where they found methamphetamine and marijuana. Bindner was standing near the location where the drugs were found. He was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, one count of felony possession of methamphetamine, and one count of misdemeanor possession of marijuana.During the trial, Bindner's defense was that while the drugs were present in the residence, they were not his and he did not possess them. However, a text message exchange between Bindner and his girlfriend suggested that he had knowledge of the methamphetamine and had an intent to control it. The jury found Bindner guilty on all three counts. The district court dismissed the count for possession of methamphetamine on double jeopardy grounds and sentenced Bindner to a combined prison term of five to eight years on the remaining counts.Bindner appealed, claiming that his counsel was deficient in his failure to produce a potentially exculpatory witness statement. After an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that defense counsel's performance was deficient as he failed to reasonably investigate the witness statement, which ultimately led to the exclusion of the witness's testimony. However, the court concluded that Bindner had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different. Therefore, the court denied Bindner's motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Bindner, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case involves Travis No'Mana Gonsalves, who was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, and sexual exploitation of children. The charges stemmed from an incident where Gonsalves, while sharing a bed with his 15-year-old stepdaughter, AA, in a hotel, moved closer to her, caressed her chest area over her bra, and placed his legs between hers. AA felt his erect penis against her and told him to stop. The next morning, Gonsalves apologized for his actions. He later told his biological son that he regretted touching AA. The incident was reported to the police, and a search of Gonsalves's electronic devices revealed child pornography and pictures of AA in a bikini and a towel.The District Court of Natrona County held a two-day jury trial. Gonsalves was acquitted of two counts of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor based on the photographs of AA but was found guilty on the remaining counts. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of incarceration for seven to ten years for the sexual abuse of a minor convictions, and one consecutive term of eight to ten years for the sexual exploitation of children conviction. Gonsalves appealed the two sexual abuse of a minor convictions, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence for the jury to find he had the necessary intent to be convicted for sexual abuse of a minor.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to infer that Gonsalves was awake during the incident and that he acted with the intent of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse. The court also found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Gonsalves acted knowingly when he took "immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with" AA. View "Gonsalves v. State" on Justia Law

Solomon Bolen was convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. Bolen appealed, arguing that the district court violated his due process rights by not instructing the jury on his plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency (NGMI). He also claimed that his attorneys were ineffective for not seeking those instructions. Additionally, Bolen contended that his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery violated his right against double jeopardy.The district court had found Bolen mentally fit to proceed with the trial. Despite Bolen's NGMI plea, the court-designated examiner, Dr. Wilkinson, opined that Bolen did not meet the statutory criteria for an NGMI defense. She noted that Bolen's altered state of mind and psychosis at the time of the crimes were caused by self-induced intoxication, which is specifically excluded from the statutory definition of mental illness or deficiency. Bolen's attorneys did not pursue the NGMI defense and focused instead on the self-induced intoxication defense.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bolen did not present competent evidence to support an NGMI defense, and thus was not entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense. The court also found that Bolen's attorneys were not ineffective for not pursuing the NGMI defense, as the instructions would not have been proper even if they had renewed their request for them. Lastly, the court held that Bolen's convictions for attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not violate his right against double jeopardy, as the crimes contained separate elements. View "Bolen v. State" on Justia Law

Wesley de Sousa Soares, a Brazilian national and professional jiu jitsu fighter, was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault. The charges stemmed from an encounter with a woman, KB, whom he met through an online dating application. KB alleged that Soares sexually assaulted her multiple times at her residence until she managed to escape. Soares, however, claimed that KB had consented to their sexual encounter. While in custody, Soares made phone calls in Portuguese, which were recorded and later translated. These recordings were admitted as evidence during the trial.The District Court of Albany County convicted Soares on three of the four counts. Soares appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the audio recordings without an accompanying English transcription. He also claimed that the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination and closing arguments, and that the court committed structural error by providing the jury with equipment to listen to the audio exhibits.The Supreme Court of Wyoming disagreed with Soares' arguments. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's admission of the audio exhibits without an English transcription. It also found no prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination or closing arguments. Lastly, the court acknowledged that the trial court erred in providing the jury with equipment to listen to the audio exhibits without first screening the recordings, but it ruled that this error was not structural and that Soares had waived this claim by failing to object. Consequently, the court affirmed Soares' conviction. View "Soares v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this appeal, John Gustke (Father) contests a decision by the District Court of Natrona County, Wyoming, which partially denied several motions to set aside the forfeiture of a $100,000 surety bond. The bond was linked to a criminal case involving Father's son, Karl Gustke (Criminal Defendant), who violated his bond conditions and absconded from the state. Father was jointly liable for the bond through a promissory note and indemnity agreement with the surety and surety's insurer. The District Court also denied Father's motion to intervene in the case as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.), without giving notice to Father.The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that the District Court had erred by not providing Father with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on his motion to intervene. The court reversed the District Court's order denying Father's motion to intervene and remanded the case for a properly noticed hearing and for any further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court did not reach a decision on the remission of the bond, stating that it would be premature given the District Court's error. View "Gustke v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the appellant, Benjamin David Wilson, was charged with second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, following allegations involving his stepdaughter, K.P. The jury acquitted him of the second-degree charge but found him guilty of the third-degree charge. Wilson appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient for a conviction on the third-degree charge.The facts presented to the court included K.P.'s testimony that Wilson had inappropriately touched her during a family event. Wilson denied the allegations, providing an alternative account of the incident. Despite this, the jury found him guilty of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor, leading to a sentence of 10 to 15 years in prison.In response to Wilson's appeal, the court affirmed the conviction. It stated that the jury's acquittal on one charge did not necessarily impact the verdict on the other charge. The court indicated that each charge was treated as a separate indictment, and verdicts on multiple charges did not need to be consistent. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, affirming Wilson's conviction based on K.P.'s testimony. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Wyoming heard an appeal by Rodger William Dillard, who contested the termination of his parental rights to his three minor children. Dillard had initially adopted his grandchildren after their biological parents' rights were terminated. After Dillard's wife, who had custody of the children, passed away, allegations of sexual abuse were made against Dillard by two of the children. Dillard was then charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse of a minor.The Department of Family Services initially aimed to reunify the children with Dillard. However, after more than a year in the Department's custody, the plan was changed to adoption due to Dillard's lack of progress in meeting the requirements of his Family Service Case Plan. Dillard was eventually sentenced to concurrent sentences of three to five years for two counts of sexual abuse of a minor. Following this, the Department filed a petition to terminate Dillard's parental rights.The district court found that termination was in the best interest of the children, as Dillard was unfit to meet their ongoing physical, mental, and emotional needs. Dillard appealed this decision, arguing that the Department had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children.However, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Dillard's parental rights. The Court held that Dillard's incarceration due to his felony convictions for sexual abuse of a minor demonstrated his unfitness to have custody and control of the children. The Court therefore affirmed the termination of Dillard's parental rights under the provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), which allows for termination of parental rights if the parent is incarcerated due to a felony conviction and is shown to be unfit for custody and control of the child. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights To: Mmd, Jid and Drd v. State, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

In the State of Wyoming, Jonathon Tyson Blair, representing himself, appealed the denial of his motion for sentence reduction by the District Court of Sweetwater County. Blair had been sentenced to a term of eight to ten years and requested a reduction to a term of five to ten years. He argued that he had taken steps to improve himself while incarcerated and that he needed the sentence reduction to prevent his welding certification from expiring, so he could financially support his family upon release.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the decision of the lower court, stating that the denial of the motion for sentence reduction did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that the sentencing judge is in the best position to determine if a sentence modification is appropriate and can accept or reject information submitted in support of a sentence reduction at their discretion. The court found that there was a rational basis from which the lower court could draw its conclusion and that the original sentence imposed on Blair remained appropriate. The court also dismissed Blair's allegations of bias and illegal sentencing, stating that these issues were not raised in his motion for sentence reduction and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the court discarded Blair's claim that his pre-sentencing time served was not credited to his sentence, stating that this was a matter for relief under a different rule and that the issue had already been addressed and rejected in prior proceedings. View "Blair v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Daniel A. Chace, who appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant executed after 10:00 p.m. The incident began when law enforcement stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation, driven by Mr. Chace’s brother. A search of the vehicle following a K-9 unit’s drug alert resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. That evening, the officers requested a search warrant for the driver's residence, where Mr. Chace was temporarily staying. The search warrant was executed shortly after 10:00 p.m., leading to the discovery of more drugs and paraphernalia in Mr. Chace's backpack.Mr. Chace argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the search of the residence violated Rule 41 of Wyoming's Rules of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the execution of search warrants to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., unless express authorization for a different time is provided based on good cause. The Supreme Court of Wyoming, however, affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the nighttime search did not prejudice Mr. Chace and that law enforcement did not intentionally and deliberately disregard the limits in Rule 41(e)(1). The court maintained that a violation of Rule 41 alone does not necessarily equate to a Fourth Amendment violation and does not always invoke the application of the exclusionary rule. View "Chace v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Wyoming upheld the conviction of Charles Anthony "Tony" Santistevan for multiple counts of sexual assault and one count of voyeurism. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the state to introduce evidence that Santistevan's sexual relationship with the victim, R.S., began when she was a minor. This evidence was introduced under the Wyoming Rules of Evidence (W.R.E.) 404(b), which allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for certain purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Santistevan argued that the introduction of this evidence was an abuse of the district court's discretion, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the evidence was relevant and admissible under W.R.E. 404(b) to show an ongoing scheme or plan and to demonstrate Santistevan's course of conduct, and to provide a complete story to the jury about the relationship between Santistevan and R.S., thereby aiding in determining the issue of consent in the sexual assault charges. View "Charles A. Santistevan v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law