Summary 2014 WY 21

Summary of Decision February 11, 2014

District Judge Lavery delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DELBERT R. MCDOWELL v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-13-0058

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Michael Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk A. Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Director, and David E. Singleton, Student Intern, University of Wyoming, College of Law, Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Mr. Singleton.

Date of Decision: February 11, 2014

Facts: Delbert McDowell appeals his convictions on six counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-316(a)(i) and one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(i). He claims the district court erred in holding that testimony he intended to rebut the State’s W.R.E. 404(b) evidence was evidence of his character which opened the door to rebuttal by the State pursuant to W.R.E. 404(a)(1) and W.R.E. 405(a).

Issues: McDowell presents one issue for review by this Court: Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it ruled that defense counsel opened the door and allowed the State to introduce additional 404(b) evidence?

The State rephrases the same issue: Defendants can offer evidence about relevant character traits in their case-in-chief; but on cross-examination, a prosecutor may inquire into relevant specific instances of the defendant’s conduct to rebut the offered character testimony. Here, McDowell called a witness who opined about his good character when interacting with children. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the witness if she knew McDowell had two misdemeanor convictions for sexually assaulting children. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it allowed these questions?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that McDowell opened the door to character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1) and Rule 405(a), and the State’s presentation of rebuttal character evidence did not violate his constitutional right to present a defense. 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 2013 WY 119

Summary of Decision October 2, 2013

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

Case Name: JAMES EDWIN MEDINA v. THE STATE OF WYOMING
Docket Number: S-13-0080

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

This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-315(a)(ii). The district court imposed a sentence of 18 to 20 years. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence.” On July 18, 2013, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court, on August 6, 2013, entered its “Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order notified Appellant that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” would be affirmed unless, on or before September 23, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. That order also stated:

***** regardless of whether appellant files such a brief, this Court will correct a discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence and the written sentence. At the sentencing hearing in this matter, the district court stated that it was “ordering the hundred dollars in public defender fees.” (Sentencing Transcript, p. 17) Despite that, the written judgment requires appellant to pay $400 in Public Defender fees. “A long-recognized rule of this Court is that where there is conflict between the sentence as articulated at sentencing, and the written sentence, the oral sentence prevails.” Pinker v. State, 2008 WY 86, ¶ 7, 188 P.3d 571, 574 (Wyo. 2008). Thus, this Court will, at the conclusion of this matter, order the district court to correct this discrepancy to conform to the oral pronouncement.

Now, taking note that Appellant, James Edwin Medina, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, the Court finds that the district court’s “Judgment and Sentence” should be affirmed, subject to the correction noted above. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the district court’s January 29, 2013, “Judgment and Sentence” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed, subject to correction below; and it is further

ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an order correcting the “Judgment and Sentence” so that the Appellant is required to pay $100 in Public Defender fees.

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2013.

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 2013 WY 94

Summary of Decision August 7, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Case Name: MICHAEL JESSE MUNOZ v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0191

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jeffrey S. Pope, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Pope.

Date of Decision: August 7, 2013

Facts: A jury found the appellant guilty of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. On appeal, the appellant raises four separate allegations of error in the district court.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion when, under the particular circumstances of this case, it reversed its prior ruling and admitted certain uncharged misconduct evidence under W.R.E. 404(b), such reversal occurring after the State had rested?

Holdings: In reaching the conclusion that the district court abused its discretion when it changed its prior ruling and allowed the evidence, we do not suggest that a district court may never reconsider a prior ruling on 404(b) evidence and allow evidence it previously ruled inadmissible. To the contrary, a district court can and should reconsider a prior ruling when good reason appears on the record and no prejudice results. Where, as here, however, the record does not show good reason existed and the evidence was clearly prejudicial, it was not reasonable for the district court to reverse its ruling. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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 2013 WY 72

Summary of Decision June 12, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded.

Case Name: DANIEL RAY BOWLSBY v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0078

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

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Joshua Eames, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Eames.

Date of Decision: June 12, 2013

Facts: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Daniel Ray Bowlsby pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and one count of incest. Both charges were based on the same incident involving his stepdaughter. In accordance with the plea agreement, the State dismissed seven additional charges pending against Mr. Bowlsby. On appeal, Mr. Bowlsby contends that incest is a lesser included offense of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, and, under principles of double jeopardy, claims that it was improper to convict him of both crimes. He asserts that his conviction and sentence for the crime of incest should be vacated.

Issues: The dispositive issue presented by Mr. Bowlsby is whether his constitutional right not to be placed in double jeopardy was violated when, based on the same act with the same victim, he was convicted of both incest and sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree.

Holdings: We conclude that the crime of incest is a lesser included offense of the crime of first degree sexual abuse of a minor as charged in this case. Accordingly, we will reverse Mr. Bowlsby’s conviction and sentence for the crime of incest and remand for further proceedings.

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 2013 WY 41

Summary of Decision April 9, 2013

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

Case Name: DOUGLAS HOWARD CRAFT v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0107

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

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

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; Kirk Morgan, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Martens.

Date of Decision: April 9, 2013

Facts: Douglas Howard Craft was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second degree sexual abuse of a minor upon his three daughters. He appealed, claiming the prosecutor committed misconduct when he questioned a witness about an exhibit that was not admitted as evidence, there was a fatal variance between the charges in the information and the charges proven at trial and the district court abused its discretion when it prohibited his expert witness from testifying about his opinion on what type of sexual abuse allegations were made in this case.

Issues: Mr. Craft presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Did prosecutorial misconduct occur when the prosecutor questioned witnesses on an exhibit he did not intend to submit into evidence?

2. Concerning two of the victims, PC and AXC, was there… a fatal variance between the charges alleged and the charges proven at trial?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it prohibited Mr. Craft’s expert witness from providing an opinion as to which class the allegation of sexual abuse falls within?

The State presents the same issues but phrased differently.

Holdings: The Court concluded that Mr. Craft was not prejudiced by the identification procedure because sufficient other evidence of Mr. Craft’s identity as the perpetrator was presented at trial. There was no variance between the charges alleged and the charges proven at trial; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony, which fell outside the range of permissible opinion testimony. Finding no error, the Court 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 2013 WY 29

Summary of Decision March 13, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: KENNETH JAMES HUCKFELDT v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0183

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, Honorable Nena James, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): W. Keith Goody, Cougar, WA.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Prosecution Assistance Clinic, Emily N. Thomas, Student Director; and Adrianna J. Potts, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Racines.

Date of Decision: March 13, 2013

Facts: A jury convicted Kenneth Huckfeldt of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. Huckfeldt appeals the district court’s denial of a continuance motion and the court’s admission of uncharged misconduct evidence of his prior conviction for sexual assault of a minor.

Issues: Huckfeldt presents the following issues for our review:

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Mr. Huckfeldt’s motion for continuance of the trial due to a missing witness and was it mistaken when it found that the public defender did not use due diligence?

Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence testimony of the victim that resulted in a prior conviction of Mr. Huckfeldt for sexual assault?

Holdings: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Huckfeldt’s continuance motion or its admission of uncharged misconduct evidence. 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 2013 WY 1

Summary of Decision January 3, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: EDWIN VINCENT CONKLE v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0151

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

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan G. O’Brien, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 3, 2013

Facts: Slightly less than one year after his conviction for first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, Appellant Edwin Conkle filed a pro se motion for a reduction of his sentence. He sought review of the district court’s denial of that motion.

Issues: Without identifying any legal issue, Mr. Conkle offers us only the information he presented to the district court in conjunction with his motion, and asks that we reduce his sentence. We will construe his filing as a request that we determine whether or not the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence.

Holdings: The Court has long held the view that it would be unwise to usurp what is properly a function of the district courts by finding an abuse of discretion in denying a sentence reduction motion simply because it was supported by evidence of a defendant’s commendable conduct while incarcerated. Nothing in this case persuaded the Court to abandon that view. 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 2012 WY 155

Summary of Decision December 13, 2012


Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DONALD PAUL HUTCHINSON v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S 12 0034

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

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Elisabeth M.W. Trefonas, Assistant Public Defender, Jackson, WY.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jeffrey Pope, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

Facts: In October of 2010, Donald Hutchinson was charged with one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. The charges against Hutchinson alleged that he inappropriately touched a six-year-old girl’s vagina for sexual gratification while bathing her. Hutchinson was the victim’s step-grandfather at the time. The victim (HAL) reported the incident to her 14-year-old brother (TL), who then told their grandmother, who reported the information to authorities of the allegations, and an investigation followed. Eventually, the case was tried to a jury on November 7-8, 2011, and Hutchinson was found guilty. He was sentenced to two to eight years at the State penitentiary. On appeal, he contends that the victim was incompetent to testify and that the district court improperly denied his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.

Issues: Hutchinson presents two issues:

1. Because the competency of the child witness was not properly examined and she was not competent to testify, it was clearly erroneous to allow her testimony and Hutchinson’s conviction must be reversed.

2. Because there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Hutchinson had “sexual contact” with the victim, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Hutchinson’s conviction must be reversed.

Holdings: The Court concluded that the trial court’s decision that the child victim was competent to testify was not clearly erroneous. Having passed the five-part test elicited by the Court during an impromptu but proper hearing, finding HAL competent to testify was squarely within the court’s sound discretion. Furthermore, after a thorough record review, and accepting the evidence as true and giving every favorable inference thereto, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Hutchinson engaged in sexual contact with HAL. Thus, the Court concluded the district court properly denied Hutchinson’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. 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 2012 WY 151

Summary of Decision November 29, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed.

Case Name: ANTHONY BRETT HAYNES v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0065

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

Appeal from the District Court of Johnson County, Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Tina N. Olson, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Meri V. Geringer, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2012

Facts: Appellant was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. Based on the same incident, he was later convicted on a criminal charge. He asserted that the criminal prosecution violated his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy. The State conceded error. The Court agreed that Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated, and reversed his criminal conviction.

Issues: The first issue presented by Appellant is whether his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree should be reversed due to violations of the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions. Because we reverse his conviction based on this issue, we will not address his second issue, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal proceedings.

Holdings: The record clearly reflects that Appellant was adjudged delinquent, then criminally prosecuted and punished for the same offense. The double jeopardy provisions of our state and federal constitutions provide a clear and unequivocal rule of law prohibiting that subsequent criminal prosecution and punishment, and this rule of law was clearly and obviously transgressed. The prohibited criminal conviction and punishment adversely affected Appellant’s substantial rights and resulted in material prejudice to him. The Court reversed Appellant’s criminal conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree.

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 2012 WY 150

Summary of Decision November 28, 2012

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Names: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: KAT, SAT, and JGS, Minor Children, NLT v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: JGS, Minor Child, MDS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
Docket Numbers: S-12-0068 and S-12-0069

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

Appeals from the District Court of Hot Springs County, Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Case No. S-12-0068:

Representing Appellant: Mary L. Scheible of Scheible Law Office, Thermopolis, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Kucera.

Guardian Ad Litem: Bobbi D. Overfield of Messenger & Overfield, P.C., Thermopolis, Wyoming.

Case No. S-12-0069:
Representing Appellant: Christopher J. King of Worrall & Greear, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. McCabe.

Guardian Ad Litem: Bobbi D. Overfield of Messenger & Overfield, P.C., Thermopolis, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: November 28, 2012

Facts: This opinion encompasses two separate cases that have been consolidated for the purpose of decision. NLT, who is one of the appellants in this matter, is the mother of KAT, SAT, and JGS. The other appellant, MDS, is the father of JGS. Following a five-day bench trial, the district court terminated NLT’s and MDS’s parental rights to the minor children. Both parents appealed, claiming that the Department of Family Services (DFS) failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that their parental rights should be terminated. We affirm the district court’s decision.

Issues: Did DFS present clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, and JGS? Did DFS present clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to terminate MDS’s parental rights to JGS?

Holdings: DFS presented clear and convincing evidence at trial to support the district court’s decision to terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, and JGS, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v). The evidence demonstrated that all of the children had been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, and that NLT continuously put her children in dangerous situations, placed the wants and desires of her ex-husband and boyfriends ahead of the welfare of her children, and cannot meet the basic financial and parental needs of the children. The evidence also showed that NLT would never be able to provide adequate care for her children absent extraordinary help from service providers. DFS also presented clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to terminate MDS’s parental rights to JGS, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv). MDS is currently serving two consecutive sentences of not less than 20 years nor more than 35 years in prison for sexually abusing KAT. MDS cannot appropriately care for JGS’s ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs while he is in prison and will not be eligible for parole until JGS is in his adulthood. Further, the evidence demonstrates that MDS is a sexual offender who suffers from such moral delinquency that he cannot be considered a fit parent. We affirm both of the district court orders terminating NLT’s and MDS’s rights to KAT, SAT, and JGS.

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 2012 WY 125

Summary of Decision September 26, 2012

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Justice Burke concurred in part and dissented in part with whom Chief Justice Kite joins.

Case Name: ADAM J. MERSEREAU  v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-11-0194

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

Appeal from the District Court of Converse County, Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

Representing Appellant: Tara B. Nethercott and Gay V. Woodhouse, Woodhouse Roden, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. Nethercott.

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

Date of Decision: September 26, 2012

Facts: The appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of all nine of the charges against him.  In this appeal, he raised eight issues where he claimed there was error in his trial.  Due to the number of issues in the appeal, additional facts are discussed in the full opinion when relevant.

Issues: Whether the district court’s decision that the victim was competent to testify was clearly erroneous. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it admitted computer forensic evidence and family photos into evidence under W.R.E. 404(b).  Whether the district court commented improperly upon the weight of the evidence.  Whether the district court erred when it determined that the appellant’s statement to Deputy Peech was given voluntarily.  Whether plain error occurred when Deputy Peech expressed his opinion that the appellant was lying during the interview. Whether plain error occurred when the district court instructed the jury that there need be no corroboration of the victim’s testimony in order to convict the appellant. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain each of the convictions. Whether the appellant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Holdings: After a careful review of the record, the Court could not say that the appellant received a fair trial.  Therefore, the Court reversed the appellant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.

BURKE, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom KITE, Chief Justice, joins.

Appellant identified eight appellate issues.  I disagree with the majority’s resolution of several of those issues.  Ultimately, however, I agree that all of Appellant’s convictions must be reversed because of error related to the admission of evidence concerning the pornographic websites. Although Appellant’s convictions for Counts Two through Nine should be reversed, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support those convictions. 

The issues and discussion are included in the full opinion.

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]