Shirley Weidt v. The State of Wyoming
2013 WY 143
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Weidt owns 40.76 acres outside Banner, Sheridan County, with land zoned for agricultural and residential use.
- Sheridan County pursued a civil zoning abatement action seeking a mandatory injunction to remove nonconforming vehicles and trailers on the property.
- Trial court issued a May 17, 2012 order requiring abatement within 60 days and authorizing entry and removal at Weidt’s expense if not complied.
- An September 11, 2012 nunc pro tunc amendment added bolded language about process and disposal of removed items, creating ambiguity about time and obligations.
- On September 24, 2012, county officers attempted to enter the property; Weidt refused entry at the gate, expressing misunderstanding of the nunc pro tunc order.
- Weidt was convicted of indirect criminal contempt for disobeying the court orders, but the conviction was reversed and the case remanded to vacate the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of willful contempt beyond a reasonable doubt? | Weidt willfully disobeyed a court order by blocking entry. | Ambiguity in the nunc pro tunc order and lack of clear directives precluded willful disobedience. | Yes, but reversed; insufficient evidence of willful disobedience beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re BD, 2010 WY 18 (Wy. 2010) (recognizes criminal contempt as a core, burden on State to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- EWR, 902 P.2d 696 (Wyo. 1995) (stresses three-part test for willful disobedience in contempt cases)
- Sweets v. State, 2013 WY 98 (Wy. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- Craft v. State, 2013 WY 41 (Wy. 2013) (clarifies sufficiency review and deference to jury/fact-finder findings)
- Kelly v. Kilts, 2010 WY 151 (Wy. 2010) (de novo review of legal questions such as interpretation of rules and orders)
- In re Kite Ranch, LLC v. Powell Family of Yakima, LLC, 2008 WY 39 (Wy. 2008) (indirect contempt and interpretation of amended orders)
- Hipp, 5 F.3d 109 (5th Cir. 1993) (requires willful violation of a reasonably specific order for contempt)
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (U.S. 2011) (illustrates limits when obedience to an order is impracticable or unclear)