Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, Shaun T. Kobielusz appealed his convictions of three counts of voyeurism. Kobielusz contended that there was insufficient evidence of the element of “looking” for the jury to convict him of voyeurism, that the jury instruction given on the elements of voyeurism was improper, and that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress videos on a memory card given to law enforcement by his wife. The Supreme Court of Wyoming disagreed with Kobielusz's claims. They determined that the voyeurism statute does not require proof of “looking” at the captured images for a conviction. They also found that the jury instruction did not violate a clear and unequivocal rule of law. Lastly, they affirmed the district court's decision to deny Kobielusz's motion to suppress the videos, concluding that his wife had common authority over the memory cards and had the right to consent to their search. Therefore, the court affirmed Kobielusz's conviction. View "Kobielusz v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Leopoldo Alvarado, who sought to terminate his duty to register as a sex offender after having registered for at least ten years, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-304 of the Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act. The District Court denied his petition on the grounds that the time he spent on probation did not count toward the ten-year statutory prerequisite.However, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming disagreed and reversed the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court found that the clear and unambiguous language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-304 does not require probation to be completed before the ten-year registration period begins to run. The court ruled that probation is not listed as a tolling event, and the court will not read words into a statute when the legislature has chosen not to include them.The Supreme Court stated that the District Court should have considered whether Mr. Alvarado should be relieved of the duty to continue registration after demonstrating he had maintained a clean record by meeting all four conditions during the ten-year registration period. These conditions included having no conviction of any offense for which imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed, having no conviction of any sex offense, successfully completing any periods of supervised release, probation, and parole, and successfully completing any sex offender treatment previously ordered by the trial court or his probation or parole agent. The case was remanded for further consideration. View "Alvarado v. State" on Justia Law

In Wyoming, Remi Larsen was facing a misdemeanor charge for possession of a controlled substance. Larsen moved to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her apartment. The trial court granted Larsen's motion, ruling that she did not voluntarily consent to the search. The State appealed this decision, resulting in the district court reversing the trial court's order. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court abused its discretion when it initially granted the State's petition for an interlocutory writ of review. The Supreme Court explained that the district court should only grant such a review in "rare and unusual" cases that present questions of first impression, constitutional magnitude, and great public import. The court found that Larsen's case did not meet these criteria. The court's order was reversed, and the lower court was directed to reinstate the original suppression order. View "Larsen v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, appellant Ismael Ruiz sought to appeal the dismissal of his motion for a sentence reduction by the District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, arguing that the court had erred in ruling it did not have jurisdiction over his motion. The Supreme Court, State of Wyoming found that Ruiz had filed his motion for sentence reduction beyond the one-year deadline stipulated by Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure (W.R.Cr.P.) 35(b). Therefore, the District Court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the motion. As a result, the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming also lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it. The details of the case involve Ruiz's 2018 conviction for aggravated assault and battery, for which he was sentenced to seven to ten years in prison but placed on supervised probation for five years. After violating his probation in 2019, the original prison sentence was imposed. Ruiz attempted multiple times to have his sentence reduced or his conviction overturned, with all motions being dismissed by the District Court due to untimeliness or lack of jurisdiction. View "Ruiz v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming, appellant Darrell Leonardo Alexander claimed that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement after they entered his apartment without a warrant or his consent. The case revolved around the question of warrantless entry and consent.The court held that the warrantless entry into Alexander's apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This was because the officers reasonably believed that Alexander's girlfriend, identified as E.B., had the apparent authority to consent to their entry. E.B. had called the police to report domestic violence, and when the officers arrived, she opened the door to the apartment and stepped inside, holding the door open for the officers. This action was seen as an invitation for the officers to enter the apartment.The court also found that E.B. had given implied consent for the officers to enter the apartment based on her nonverbal gestures and actions, such as opening the door and stepping inside when asked about the location of her boyfriend. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court ruled that the officers' reliance on E.B.'s apparent authority to consent to their entry was reasonable. As such, the district court's decision to deny Alexander's motion to suppress the evidence was affirmed. View "Alexander v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Travis James Wright, found guilty of two counts of sexual exploitation of children, appealed the denial of his motion for sentence reduction by the District Court of Carbon County. He had been sentenced to two concurrent sentences of eight to ten years. Wright filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction, arguing prosecutorial misconduct, the proportionality of his sentence, and providing personal information and letters of support. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The court explained that it reviews rulings on motions for sentence reduction for abuse of discretion, and the sentencing judge is in the best position to decide about sentence modification. The court found that Wright's claims were not supported by cogent argument and were not appropriate under a Rule 35(b) motion, which cannot be used to attack the validity of a conviction or as a substitute for a properly filed appeal. The court also noted that productive behavior alone does not require the district court to grant a sentence reduction. View "Wright v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Wyoming, Kristina Croy, a daycare operator, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter following a six-day jury trial. The charges stemmed from an incident in which an eight-month-old infant, MG, in her care died due to positional asphyxia resulting from being improperly swaddled. Croy appealed, arguing, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed the conviction, stating there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that swaddling MG posed a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, and that Croy had consciously disregarded that risk. The Court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed a juror who had discussed the case with another juror prior to deliberations, violating the court's instructions not to prejudge the case. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or deprive Croy of a fair trial when it declined her request to impose restrictions on how the State split its time between closing summation and rebuttal argument. The Court's decision was based on the particular facts of the case, noting that Croy could not demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability the verdict might have been more favorable to her if the prosecutor had not been allowed to make a lengthy rebuttal argument. View "Croy v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In a car accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist, the driver, Yvonne Patrice Kessel, was convicted of one count of aggravated vehicular homicide. The State of Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Kessel’s proposed jury instruction, which suggested that the jury could consider the victim’s actions when determining proximate cause, was not a proper theory of defense. The Court found that Kessel was essentially arguing that the State failed to prove the proximate cause element of the charged offense, which it deemed a "claim of innocence" or "failure of proof" defense not warranting a special theory of defense instruction. The Court also ruled that the jury had been adequately instructed on the concept of proximate cause and that the instructions allowed both parties to argue their respective theories of the case. Thus, the Court concluded that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kessel’s proposed instruction. View "Kessel v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 35(a), holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant's motion was barred by res judicata.Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and sentenced to twelve to twenty years in prison on each count, to be served consecutively. After unsuccessfully moving in 2015 to correct an illegal sentence, in 2022 Defendant filed the current motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his consecutive sentences were illegal because they exceeded the twenty-year statutory maximum sentence for aggravated vehicular homicide. The district court denied the motion on res judicata grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant already raised and litigated the claim presented in his current motion, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 35(a) motion on res judicata grounds. View "Tucker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion in his criminal case for the return of property seized by law enforcement during the underlying criminal investigation, holding that remand was required.Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery. Several months after he was sentenced Defendant filed a motion requesting suppression of items used as evidence in his case. The district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Defendant's motion in the criminal case because a post-conviction motion for return of property is a civil matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in declaring that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion for return of his property, nor did it have the legal authority to order return of the property because the motion was authorized by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 41(d), and the court should have received evidence to determine whether Defendant was entitled to return of the property. View "Bunten v. State" on Justia Law