Summary 2012 WY 105

Summary of Decision August 1, 2012


Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: JULIE ANN JACOBSEN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-11-0120

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Robert W. Southard, Laramie, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Date of Decision: August 1, 2012

Facts: A jury found Julie Ann Jacobsen guilty of ten felony counts involving forgery and larceny. She appealed the convictions, claiming her trial counsel was ineffective. She also asked the Court to allow her to supplement the trial record in order to prove her ineffective assistance claim.

Issues: Ms. Jacobsen presented two issues for this Court’s consideration:

Issue One: Did defense counsel fail to investigate this case, obtain documents and witnesses, including an expert, and therefore deny Ms. Jacobsen effective assistance of counsel?

Issue Two: Will this court effectively deny Ms. Jacobsen the right to due process and a meaningful appeal by denying her the opportunity to supplement the trial record in her attempt to prove her appellate claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel?

Addressing Ms. Jacobsen’s first issue, the State asserted Ms. Jacobsen received effective assistance of counsel and, in any event, the evidence against her was so overwhelming that she was not prejudiced by any ineffectiveness. Addressing her second issue, the State contended this Court properly denied Ms. Jacobsen’s previous motion requesting a partial remand to supplement the record and should not reconsider that ruling.

Holdings: The Court declined Ms. Jacobsen’s request to supplement the record and affirmed her convictions. Affirmed.

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summary 2011 WY 122

Summary of Decision August 25, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it is issued.  You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation.  You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered.  When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number.  The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] 

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Myra Jean Ford v. The State of Wyoming

Citation:  2011 WY 122

Docket Number: S-11-0021

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=464184

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, The Honorable John R. Perry, Judge.

Representing Appellant:  Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee:  Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Meri V. Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. Geringer.

Date of Decision: August 25, 2011

Facts: Appellant worked as a substance abuse therapist at Campbell County Memorial Hospital (CCMH) and was convicted of seven counts of forgery.  In this appeal, Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s presentation of evidence.  Appellant maintains that the evidence the State produced was not sufficient to prove any of the fundamental elements of the crime of forgery. 

Issues: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal after the prosecution failed to produce evidence sufficient to prove the elements of forgery required by W.S. § 6-3-602(a)(ii)(b).  The State rephrases the issue somewhat, but in essence mirrors Appellant’s articulation of it.

Holdings:  The Court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant acted with the intent to defraud.  The Court reversed the district court’s judgment and sentence and remanded the matter to the district court with directions that the information be dismissed with prejudice.

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Justice Voigt, specially concurring.

To prove forgery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-602(a) (LexisNexis 2011), the State must prove that the defendant acted “with intent to defraud.”  That requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended “[t]o cause injury or loss to (a person) by deceit.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 488 (9th ed. 2009).  I agree with the majority that the State failed to meet that burden, and reversal is therefore required.  My difference with the majority is that I believe that is the point where the opinion should stop; we should not attempt to declare whether or not the act of signing one’s own name under these circumstances may be an act of forgery.  That question should be left for another day, when it needs to be answered.  Here, the majority’s finding of abuse of discretion and its determination to reverse is based solely upon the State’s failure to prove intent to defraud.