Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Wyoming Department of Revenue (Department) directed Appellants, on-line travel companies (OTCs), to collect and remit taxes on the total amounts they collected from customers booking hotel rooms in Wyoming. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) upheld the order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the SBOE did not err in finding that the full amount paid by a customer to the OTCs for a reservation of a hotel room in Wyoming was taxable to the Department; (2) the Department’s imposition of sales tax on the full amount collected by the OTCs did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to the OTCs; and (3) the imposition of the sales tax did not violate the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. View "Travelocity.com LP v. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of felony child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Defendant’s right to confrontation by allegedly limiting the cross-examination of the victim regarding inappropriate sexual contact between the victim and his sister because the district court did not make a ruling on the issue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by not granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence such that a jury could return a guilty verdict. View "Swan v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by threatening to use a drawn deadly weapon. On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to call an expert witness. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict; (2) Appellant did not receive constitutionally effective counsel, and, under the circumstances, a reasonable probability existed that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome would have been different; and (3) the jury was improperly instructed on self defense. View "Cooper v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree and one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. During trial, Defendant called a witness who opined about Defendant’s good character when interacting with children. On cross-examination, the trial court allowed the prosecutor to ask the witness if she knew Defendant had two prior convictions for sexually assaulting children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Defendant opened the door to character evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) and Wyo. R. Evid. 405(a), and the State’s presentation of rebuttal character evidence did not violate Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. View "McDowell v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part a pretrial discovery request made by Appellant; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation when the State’s expert witness testified as to the operation, maintenance, and accuracy of the breath alcohol test machine used in this case; and (3) Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in not calling an expert witness to testify as to the effect of diabetes on the results of a breath alcohol test. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered Alford pleas to promoting prostitution, conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault, and aggravated assault and battery on a pregnant woman. The victim in this case was Defendant’s girlfriend. The district court imposed suspended sentences of incarceration and ten years probation to run consecutively with a term of imprisonment for the conspiracy charge. One of the conditions of Defendant’s probation was that Defendant have no contact with the victim of the offense or the minor children of the victim and Defendant. Defendant appealed, arguing that the “no contact” condition of his probation was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation and was an encroachment upon his fundamental right to raise his children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the “no contact” condition of probation in Defendant’s sentencing. View "Perkins v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant entered conditional pleas of guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, arguing that marijuana evidence discovered in her vehicle following a traffic stop was the product of an unlawful detention. Specifically, Defendant argued that her detention was unreasonable because the questioning of Defendant was not tailored to the traffic stop and was not supported by a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the questioning and detention of Defendant were reasonable and did not violate Wyo. Const. art. I, 4. View "Klomliam v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged and convicted of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol, reckless driving, driving with a suspended license, and driving without an interlock device. On appeal, Appellant argued (1) his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because he spent 332 days incarcerated after he was arrested and before his trial began, and (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the reckless driving conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the delay between Appellant’s arrest and trial was approximately eleven months, Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated; and (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction for reckless driving. View "Mascarenas v. State" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ child. Father later field a petition for modification of custody and time-sharing. The district court found there had been a substantial change of circumstances and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be awarded custody. Mother appealed, claiming (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over Father’s petition for modification of custody due to Father’s failure to comply with the statutory pleading requirements; (2) her due process right was violated when default was improperly entered against her; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in entering a child support order due to its failure to comply with statutory child support requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s petition; (2) Mother was given the process she was due; and (3) the district court correctly ruled on the child support issue. View "Brush v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of several criminal offenses, including attempted second-degree murder. The district court sentenced Appellant to thirty to forty years for the attempted murder conviction with lesser sentences to run concurrently. The district court subsequently denied Appellant's motion for sentence reduction and Appellant's ensuing motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's motions, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence; (2) the district court did not violate Appellant's due process rights by denying Appellant's motion to reconsider a sentence reduction; and (2) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by misstating facts in its traverse to Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence. View "Sanchez v. State" on Justia Law