Court Summaries

• Citation: Vol. 48 No. 3 Pg. 44
• Year: 2025
• Pages: 44

Court Summaries No. Vol. 48 No. 3 Pg. 44 Wyoming Bar Journal June, 2025

Emily Madden is an Associate at The Spence Law Firm, LLC in Casper, Wyoming.

Patterson v. Wyoming, 2025 WY 30 (Mar. 30, 2025)

In September 2019, Shelby Sandoval dropped off her four-year-old twin daughters at her sister's house. The sister's live-in boyfriend, William Patterson, watched the girls while Sandoval was at work. When Sandoval picked up her daughters later that afternoon, they disclosed that Patterson forced them to touch his genitals and that he touched theirs. After Sandoval reported this to the police, Sandoval, the twins, and Sandoval's sister and boyfriend were interviewed by police. Although Patterson initially agreed to speak with a detective, he never did.

Patterson wasn't charged with a crime at that time. However, as the twins continued to recall more details, Sandoval once again reported the incident in December 2022. This time, Patterson was charged with four counts of second- and third-degree sexual abuse of a minor.

At trial, when discussing the 2019 investigation in her opening statement, the prosecutor stated: "I will let you know that a request to Mr. Patterson to discuss things were made. He declined, which is his right to do so." Patterson objected that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, and he moved for a mistrial. The objection was sustained, the court instructed the jury to disregard the statement, and the court ordered the prosecutor to refrain from further referencing Patterson's silence. However, the court denied Patterson's motion for a mistrial, finding the statement was brief and intended to preempt any argument that the investigation was incomplete, not to imply guilt. Patterson was convicted on two counts.

On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court clarified that prejudice plays no role in determining whether an improper comment on the right to remain silent occurred, and it overruled any precedent to the contrary. The Court held that a prosecutor's improper comment on a defendant's right to remain silent is prejudicial per se and will result in the conviction being overturned. The Court found the prosecutor's statement improperly commented on Patterson's right to remain silent. The Court rejected the district court's reliance on the prosecutor's subjective intent, which is irrelevant. 'Ihe analysis focuses on the context in which the statement is made, which is an objective inquiry. Here, the statement implied that Patterson's refusal to speak with law enforcement was an indication of guilt, which violated Patterson's constitutional right. The district court improperly relied on the brevity of the statement because that goes to prejudice, which is irrelevant when making the threshold determination of whether the statement was improper. Since the comment was improper, it was prejudicial per se. Although the district court took curative actions, the error could not be cured. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Elsner v. Campbell County Hospital District, 2025 WY 37 (Apr. 2, 2025)

In early 2019, The Legacy Living and Rehabilitation Center engaged a third-party staffing agency to fill a temporary CNA position. After reviewing materials provided by the agency, The Legacy selected Ms. Nelisse and offered her an initial 13-week assignment that was later extended. Margaret Wilkey was one of The Legacy's long-term residents with advanced dementia and Alzheimer's. In July 2019, Nelisse grabbed Wilkey by the shoulders, forcibly slammed her onto the bed, and pulled the bed sheets across her neck.

After Wilkey's unrelated death, her daughter, Susan Elsner, filed a lawsuit claiming that The Legacy was vicariously liable for Nelisse's negligence and directly liable for failing to protect her mother from abuse. The Legacy claimed that Nelisse was an independent contractor who committed an intentional tort, thereby exempting The Legacy from liability under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA).

At trial, the jury found Nelisse was an agent of

The Legacy and found both Nelisse and The Legacy negligent. The jury apportioned 75% of fault to Nelisse and 25% to The Legacy, and it awarded $660,000 in damages to Wilkeys estate.

Post-trial, the parties submitted competing proposed judgments. The Legacy claimed the damages should be reduced proportionately according to the jury's fault allocation, whereas Elsner argued judgment should be entered for the full amount. Without a hearing or explanation, the district court entered The Legacy's proposed judgment. On appeal, Elsner argued the...