Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery. The district court sentenced Defendant to forty to fifty years in prison for the attempted murder and to a term of fifteen to fifty years for the aggravated assault and battery. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the cumulative sentences Defendant received upon conviction of the offenses of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated assault and battery did not offend principles of double jeopardy; and (2) the statutes under which Defendant was convicted were not unconstitutionally vague, either on their face or as applied to the facts of Defendant’s case. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

After a four-day jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of first degree sexual assault, battery, and unlawful contact without bodily injury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made to a nurse during a sexual assault examination in an alleged violation of Defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona; and (2) Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 48(b) and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. View "Tate v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to two life sentences according to law for crimes he committed in the 1990s. In 2015, Defendant filed a complaint against the Wyoming Board of Parole and the Wyoming Department of Corrections pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging various constitutional violations. The district court dismissed Defendant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-16-2016(a)(i) does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because there is a legitimate state interest in treating prisoners differently with respect to the statute; (2) the Wyoming Department of Corrections’ good time policy does not violate Defendant’s equal protection rights because prisoners serving life according to law and prisoners serving a term of years sentence are not similarly situated; (3) the enactment of section 7-16-205(a)(i) did not impliedly repeal Wyo. Stat. Ann. 7-13-402(a); (4) the Wyoming Board of Parole did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers by enacting policies governing the commutation application procedure; (5) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the amendment to the commutation application procedure; and (6) the Wyoming Board of Parole’s amendment to the commutation application procedure did not violate Defendant’s constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. View "Bird v. Wyoming Board of Parole" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts of felony forgery and one count of misdemeanor theft. Defendant appealed, alleging that her prosecution was motivated by prosecutorial vindictiveness, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence during closing arguments, that the district court erred by failing to provide supplemental instructions to the jury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error in Defendant’s claim of vindictive prosecution, in Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct, or in the district court’s refusal to provide supplemental instructions to the jury; (2) Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated; and (3) Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. View "Mraz v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate at Wyoming’s medium-security correctional facility in Torrington, wrote a letter to the warden asking to inspect certain public records of that institution. The institution’s employees provided him with some, but not all, of the requested documents. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint for order of enforcement and request to show cause, asserting that because the institution’s employees had not timely completed their efforts to fulfill his records requests they effectively refused to comply under the law. The institution subsequently made available to Appellant the remainder of the requested records. Thereafter, the district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly confined the scope of its review to that permitted by the Wyoming Public Records Act, (2) properly found that Appellees fully complied with Appellant’s records request, and (3) properly received information regarding the warden’s initial response to that request. Further, there was no preemption of the WPRA. View "Guy v. Lampert" 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

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

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