Dietrich v. State, 409 P.3d 1236 (Wyo. 2018). · Go Syfert
Search
Dietrich v. State, 409 P.3d 1236 (Wyo. 2018). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (34 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Anthony Frank Torres v. The State of Wyoming (wyo, 2025-01-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#15 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-405 cited 1× in this case · 31 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anthony Frank Torres v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Determining whether the trial court abused its discretion involves the consideration of whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Bittleston, ¶ 39, 442 P.3d at 1297 (quoting Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 40 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018) (other citations omitted)). [¶43] Here, the district court admitted all three of the challenged excerpts as prior consistent statements under W.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B), which states: (d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Charles Hoffman v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2025 · confidence medium
McGarvey v. State, 2014 WY 66 , ¶ 18, 325 P.3d 450, 456 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Stogner v. State, 792 P.2d 1358, 1362 (Wyo. 1990)). 2 [¶9] The statute “mandates a procedure that must be followed and a showing that must be made if a party seeks to introduce [evidence concerning the victim’s past sexual conduct].” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 41 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018); Wyo.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donald Floyd Detimore v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stat. Ann. § 6-2-312 , “mandates a procedure that must be followed and a showing that must be made if a party seeks to introduce [evidence concerning the victim’s past sexual conduct].” 3 Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 41 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles A. Santistevan v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2024 · confidence medium
Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 36 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1247 (Wyo. 2018). “[W]e recognize the danger that a course of conduct exception, standing alone, could swallow the general rule against admission of ‘other crimes, wrongs, or acts,’ and we emphasize that it must be linked to another legitimate purpose.” Anderson, 2022 WY 119, ¶ 25 , 517 P.3d at 591 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Moser, ¶ 36, 409 P.3d at 1247).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ronald Leroy King v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2023 · confidence medium
However, the threat evidence was not similar to the crimes Mr. King was charged with, thereby decreasing the likelihood that the jury “drew the improper inference that if [Mr. King] did something similar before, he probably did it again” or used the evidence “to place [him] in a different and unfavorable light.” Kincaid v. State, 2022 WY 4, ¶ 55 , 501 P.3d 1257 , 1268 (Wyo. 2022) (citation omitted); Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 22 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1244 (Wyo. 2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terry Dean Anderson v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2022 · confidence medium
However, “[w]e recognize the danger that a course of conduct exception, standing alone, could swallow the general rule against admission of ‘other crimes, wrongs, or acts,’ and we emphasize that it must be linked to another legitimate purpose.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 36 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1247 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Garrison, ¶ 29, 409 8 P.3d at 1217–18).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moser v. Wyoming Attorney General (2×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
In concluding that admission of the Middle School witnesses’ testimony was not unfairly prejudicial, the Wyoming Supreme Court focused on the trial court’s observation that the conduct to which those “witnesses testified was not more serious or reprehensible than the charged conduct.” Id. at 1248 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradley Dean Jackson v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2021 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Wyo. 2018)). [¶11] In Palmer, we excluded certain instances of “guilty-mind,” also called “consciousness of guilt,” evidence from the 404(b) analysis.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd, an Australian Registered Company Brisbane Angels Nominees Pty Ltd, an Australian Registered Company and Associated Construction Equipment Pty Ltd, an Australian Registered Company v. Gas Sensing Technology Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation D/B/A Welldog
Wyo. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Determining whether the trial court abused its discretion involves the consideration of whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 40 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Triplett v. State, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 23 , 406 P.3d 1257, 1262 (Wyo. 2017)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ty Putnam v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2020 · confidence medium
We have recognized that misdeeds of a defendant or other acts evidence “carries an inherent danger for prejudice.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1243 (Wyo. 2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: LDB, TJB, and JCB, Minor Children, Sheryl Lynn Ellis v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (2×)
Wyo. · 2019 · confidence medium
In determining whether the court abused its discretion, we consider whether it “could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Sparks v. State, 2019 WY 50 , ¶ 34, 440 P.3d 1095, 1106 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 40 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018)). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jorge F. Gonzalez-Chavarria v. The State of Wyoming
Wyo. · 2019 · confidence medium
To determine whether there is an abuse of discretion, we consider “whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did, and whether it acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 40 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1248 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Triplett v. State, 2017 WY 148, ¶ 23 , 406 P.3d 1257, 1262 (Wyo. 2017)).
discussed Cited "see" Charles Laird Kincaid v. The State of Wyoming (2×)
Wyo. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 22 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1244 (Wyo. 2018) (“The more similar the acts, the greater is the likelihood that the jury will draw the improper inference that if the defendant did it once, he probably did it again.” (citation omitted)).
Rikki Lea DIETRICH, (Defendant)
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, (Plaintiff)
S-17-0269.
Wyoming Supreme Court.
Feb 7, 2018.
409 P.3d 1236
Burke.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Order Affirming the District Court’s “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order”

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its. own motion following notification that Appellant did not file a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order,” In that order, the district court revoked Appellant’s probation following Appellant’s admission to three probation violations. The district court imposed a 2 to 5-year sentence on the underlying charge of endangering children, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-405.

[¶2] On November 29, 2017, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel e-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). This Court subsequently ordered that, on or before January 16, 2018, Appellant would be permitted to file a pro se brief specifying the issues she would like the Court to consider. This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its" rulihg on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Appellant did not file a pro se brief or any other pleading in the time allotted.

[¶3] Now, following á careful review of the record and the “Anders brief’ submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order” should be affirmed. It is,' therefore,

:i [¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, Rikki Lea Dietrich, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the district, court’s August 14, 2017, “Revocation of Probation Sentencing Order” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶6] DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ E. James Burke Chief Justice