Daniel B. Walker v. The State of Wyoming, 2013 WY 58

Walker was convicted of felony stalking under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-506(e)(iv).
On remand from this Court, the State sought and obtained amendments to the felony information to specify a date range and to identify multiple orders of protection and probation conditions.
The information and amended affidavits alleged a course of conduct aimed at Angelia Leair spanning 2006–2010, including acts before and after orders of protection.
The district court allowed two amendments to the information; defense counsel acknowledged the amendments adequately explained the charges.
Jury instructions at trial conflated the intent to harass element with the course-of-conduct element, creating potential prejudice; Walker I previously reversed for improper instructions.
The Court reverses the conviction and remands for a new trial consistent with these rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendments to the felony information were proper	Walker	Walker	Amendment not abused; proper under discretion_rule
Whether Walker received adequate notice of charges	Walker	Walker	Adequate notice; information and affidavit sufficient
Whether jury instruction 10 caused plain error by misjoining elements	Walker	State	Plain error; instruction improperly tied intent to listed acts; prejudicial; reversible error.

Walker v. State, 267 P.3d 1107 (Wyo. 2012) (remand for proper instructions after initial reversal)
Hulsy v. State, 209 P.3d 901 (Wyo. 2009) (information sufficiency standard; notice of charges)
Estrada-Sanchez v. State, 66 P.3d 703 (Wyo. 2003) (notice/charge adequacy framework)
Olsen v. State, 67 P.3d 536 (Wyo. 2003) (standard for evaluating jury instructions)
Burnett v. State, 267 P.3d 1083 (Wyo. 2011) (standard for plain error review in jury instructions)
Bloomfield v. State, 234 P.3d 366 (Wyo. 2010) (jury instruction sufficiency assessment)
Garton v. State, 910 P.2d 1348 (Wyo. 1996) (broad construction of 6-2-506(e)(iii)/(iv) and course of conduct)