Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Francis Weber was severely burned by hot mineral water when he lost consciousness in a steam room in Hot Spring State Park. Weber brought a personal injury action against several defendants, including the State. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that it was immune from suit pursuant to the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State's activities in the park fell within the statutory waiver of immunity for operation and maintenance of a public park as (1) overseeing building construction on leased property and delivery of hot mineral water to lessees are part of the State's operation of the park, and (2) under these circumstances, the State's operation and maintenance of the park included overseeing and/or inspecting its lessee's property. Remanded.

Appellants were the personal representatives of the estates of a husband and wife who were killed in a car accident. The accident was caused by a driver who, prior to the accident, had become intoxicated as a result of consuming alcoholic beverages at a bar and a saloon in Wyoming. Appellants filed a wrongful death and negligence complaint against the owners of the bar and saloon. Appellants also sought a judgment declaring Wyo. Stat. 12-8-301, which provides that no person who legally provides alcohol to another person is liable for damages caused by the intoxication of the other person, was unconstitutional if, as a matter of law, the statute provided immunity to Appellees for their conduct. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss on the ground that the Supreme Court had already found the statute to be constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) in the statute, the word "legally" in the phrase "legally provided" does not encompass municipal ordinances, and (2) the statute violates neither the constitutional doctrine of equal protection nor the constitutional prohibition of special laws.

David Baker was convicted on six methamphetamine-related charges. The Supreme Court reversed his convictions on two of the charges and affimed the other four. In these consolidated appeals, Baker (1) challenged the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, and (2) claimed the district court erred when it did not grant him access to e-mail correspondence between the department of corrections and the public defender's office. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker's motion to correct an illegal sentence, and (2) the district court was correct in observing that Baker's motion for subpoena duces tecum asking for the requested e-mail correspondence was not appropriate in the context of Baker's criminal matter.

Defendant Richard Vasco was arrested for interference with a police officer and for driving under the influence of alcohol. Vasco refused to submit to chemical testing, and the Wyoming DOT advised him that it was suspending his driver's license for six months. Vasco requested a hearing, at the conclusion of which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. Vasco sought review in the district court, which affirmed the OAH order. Vasco appealed, claiming the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for interference, and therefore the subsequent search was improper and the evidence obtained in the search that supported the DUI arrest was inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the OAH decision where (1) the officer had probable cause to arrest Vasco for interference with a police officer, and (2) the officer had probable cause to believe Vasco had been driving under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant William Bruyette was charged with felony possession of marijuana. At trial, he sought to introduce evidence that he obtained the marijuana in California with a prescription for medical marijuana. The district court granted the State's in limine motion to exclude evidence relating to a medical marijuana defense and instructed the jury that possession of medical marijuana was not a defense to the crime charged. The jury convicted defendant of felony possession of marijuana. Defendant appealed, claiming the district court denied him his constitutional right to present his defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the question of whether or not defendant had a medical marijuana card from a California physician was irrelevant because it is illegal, under Wyoming law, for a physician to prescribe or order the possession of marijuana.

Appellant appealed his murder conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial without a hearing. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant the appellant's motion for a new trial and whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by violating discovery orders, by violating a pre-trial order regarding uncharged misconduct evidence, and by eliciting testimony from a law enforcement officer that the officer believed a witness was lying during an interview. The court held that, in the context of the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt, and the district court's detailed curative instruction, the court could not say that the post-trial motion should have been granted because plaintiff had not met his burden of showing that he was prejudiced by the denial of the new trial motion in respect to the stricken testimony. The court also held that appellant failed to show that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence.

In an effort to address a perceived drug and alcohol problem among its students, Goshen County School District No. 1 ("school district") adopted a policy requiring all students who participated in extracurricular activities to consent to random testing for alcohol and drugs. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the school district where both parties agreed that there were no genuine issues of material fact but disagreed about whether the district court correctly applied the provisions of the Wyoming and United States Constitutions to the undisputed facts. The court held that appellants failed to demonstrate that the school district's policy subjected students to searches that were unreasonable under all of the circumstances and therefore, the policy did not violate Article 1, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. The court also held that the fact that the policy did not subject students to unreasonable seizures was, therefore, determinative of appellants' equal protection claim as well. The court further held that appellant had not demonstrated infringement of due process rights where appellants' speculation that judicial review might be denied in the future was insufficient to support a due process claim now. Accordingly, because appellants failed to prove that the school district's policy was unconstitutional, there was no basis for their claim that they were entitled to a permanent injunction or for their claim that the district court erred in granting summary judgment.

In two consolidated appeals, the Town of Evansville ("town") Police Department ("department") appealed the district court's order of reversal for agency inaction filed July 23, 2009 and the district court's order denying motion for relief from an order filed April 15, 2010. The appeals arose from the department's efforts to terminate the employment of plaintiff, a police officer in the department. The court held that, considering all the facts of record relative to plaintiff's request for appeal of the termination of his employment, including the consent of the attorney for the town for an extension of the ten day deadline to request a hearing, the court found that the requirements of Article 23 of Chapter 2 of the Ordinances of the town was sufficiently invoked to require a post-termination hearing. As a result, the inaction of the department in failing to provide the required hearing before the governing body must be reversed, with the matter remanded to afford the rights prescribed by the town's own ordinance.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of unlawfully touching a household member for a third or subsequent time in the past ten years, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-501(b) and (f)(ii). The second incident of abuse to which that count related occurred 15 days after the amendment to the battery statute became effective and the revised subsection (b) no longer included the unlawful touching language as a means of committing battery. At issue was whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing amendment of the Information after the jury had entered into deliberations, withdrawing a jury instruction from the jury and replacing it with a new instruction, despite appellant's objection. Also at issue was whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and committed reversible error. The court concluded that, because of the 15 day lapse from the time the statute was amended to the second of appellant's domestic violence offenses, the State's citations to subsection (b) instead of subsection (g) was a mere oversight. Therefore, the court held that appellant was not prejudiced by the Amended Information because he was not charged with a new crime when the State merely corrected a clerical error. The court also held that the sentence imposed by the trial court was an improper interpretation of the statute where unlawful touching, as it was used in section 6-2-501(g) could only be a misdemeanor subject to penalties in section 6-2-501(h) and therefore, appellant's 2 to 5 year prison sentence was illegal. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for resentencing.

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Appellant, acting pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 contending that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because he did not have adequate access to Wyoming legal research materials in a Nevada state correctional facility. Appellant challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit based on a failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the facts set forth in the complaint did not allege an actual injury and without any facts to indicate that appellant could have filed a viable petition for post-conviction relief, it could not determine that he had been injured by the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The court also held that, because appellant was able to file at least five petitions seeking relief from his conviction while he was an inmate at the Nevada state prison, and he was represented by court-appointed counsel in at least one of those actions, appellant's ability to conduct this volume of legal activity further indicated that he retained meaning access to the courts.