Osborne v. State

presents picture case vivid wrong jus- much that is with our criminal system.

tice have a We defendant who senselessly,

brutally, cruelly savagely

beat, strangled, raped; stabbed he left dead, persons seriously injured.

two one ordering

He admits the murders to “leave has, oath,

no witnesses.” He under con- open

fessed to the crimes twice in court. are,

Yet here entering the case its ninth court,

year with struggling still toward disposition of Mr. Osborn’s case. This saga multiple hearings,

sad trials and

courts required reading should be involved legal studying writing scholars improve

about what can be done to justice system.

criminal At this time it can again

be found journey through on another system.

the federal court

Jerry OSBORNE, Appellant

(Defendant), Wyoming, Appellee

The STATE of

(Plaintiff) (Two Cases).

Jerry OSBORNE, Osborne, Jerre a/k/a (Defendant), Wyoming, STATE (Plaintiff). Appellee

Nos. 90-66 to 90-68.

Supreme Wyoming. Court of

Feb.

ISSUE appellant’s pro- Whether conviction and bation revocations should be reversed insufficiency due to of the evidence? II ISSUE appellant’s Whether attorney had opportunity sufficient to discover the State’s evidence? III

ISSUE appellant’s Whether pro- conviction and bation revocations should be reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel? IV ISSUE by failing Whether the trial court erred to dismiss for lack of a trial? Appellant Jerry Osborne ran a business Casper A-l known as the Escort Service. operation The business attracted customers through newspaper listing a advertisement a number to call. The caller answering would reach an machine and tape message hear a recorded with requesting lant’s voice that the caller leave Appellant a number. would then return arrange meeting the call a with a wom- prostitution. an who would solicit an act of Appellant working had five women for Munker, Leonard D. State Public Defend- call, Upon receiving her. she would send er, Weerts, Steven E. Asst. Public De- Sr. one of them out to meet a customer. She fender, Slaughter, Legal and Donald K. “employees” instructed these how much (argued) Intern for they charge precautions should and what upon meeting to take a customer. These Gen., Joseph Meyer, Atty. B. John W. precautions checking included the customer Renneisen, Gen., Deputy Atty. Karen A. identification, checking in for with her af- Gen., Byrne, Atty. Sr. Asst. Charles A. rendered, completion ter of the services Moore, (argued); Breer and Donald G. Le- money. “employ- and collection of the Intern, gal appellee. go appellant’s ee” would then house and URBIGKIT, C.J., Before pro- deliver to her share of the THOMAS, CARDINE, Charges ranged MACY and ceeds. from $60 $120. GOLDEN, “employee” plus tips, retained $50 JJ. appellant kept the difference. CARDINE, Justice. Appellant charged promoting with

Jerry challenges Osborne her conviction prostitution under W.S. 6-4-103 on Decem- procuring receiving money from 27, 1988, ber 1988. On December she prostitution. The conviction also resulted her preliminary waived probation in revocation of her on two other January hearing. prelimi- On charges. appeal, this consolidated she nary hearing was County held Natrona challenges those revocations as well. Court, and the case was bound over for in district court. A criminal informa- January charg- tion was filed on We affirm. ing appellant with violation of W.S. 6-4- 103(a) conspiracy to violate W.S. 6-4- 103(a), brings following provides: issues: “(a) felony following if he: person program A commits Alternatives her release prison. “(i) Knowingly intentionally- entices or compels person another to become a THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE prostitute; reviewing challenge When to a criminal “(ii) procures, Knowingly intentionally sufficiency conviction on the basis of procure, person agrees or offers or a evidence, examine all the evidence purpose person for another for light most favorable to the State. Mendi prostitution; State, 1240, (Wyo. coa v. 771 P.2d 1243 “(iii) Having control over the use of a 1989). favorable, We then draw all reason place, knowingly intentionally permits or able inferences from this evidence to deter person place pros- another to use the for mine whether rational trier of fact titution; or found, beyond could have a reasonable “(iv) money property other Receives or doubt, necessary the elements of the crime prostitute, from a without lawful consid- for a conviction. v. 749 P.2d Griffin eration, knowing it earned in was whole 246, (Wyo.1988). apply 248 We this same part prostitution.” or in standard whether trial is to a or to the Appellant’s arraignment was scheduled court as in this case. Tennant v. February for but was rescheduled 761, 776 P.2d 763 February due to inclement weather. At a The evidence at the trial included 16, arraignment, appellant pled 1989 testimony Casper police from a officer and trial, 15, guilty. May The scheduled for “employee,” a former A-l plus records 1989, upon appellant’s was continued mo- telephone from A-l transactions and a an request- tion. On June the State swering tape. machine The an setting ed a trial. The court for scheduled swering tape captured appellant’s machine 10, a trial for October services; describing voice A-l and the trial, conspiracy charge Prior to was in appellant’s handwriting records doc trial, day dismissed. On the customers, umented the names of lant moved for dismissal due to lack of money split amount of received and the motion, speedy trial. The court denied the proceeds “employ between her and her attributing part of the fault for the delay testimony ees.” appellant established to the arrangements made prostitution for acts of (ii) in violation of subsection and received court, Following appellant a trial to the money from it in violation of subsection guilty was found of violation of subsections (iv). appellant’s witnesses, Even one of (ii) 6-4-103(a), (iv) procuring of W.S. Meastas, testimony implicated Tina whose person purpose prostitution appellant proprie herself instead of as the receiving money prostitution. for At the business, tor of admitted that conviction, appellant time of this was on participated in numerous factions of the probation for an insufficient funds check enterprise money and received from it. charge guilty in pled to which she 1985 and charges check of fraud and misde- directs attention to the case of larceny by pled meanor to which Konopisos Wyo. bailee she v. 185 P. revoked, (1919), guilty probation proposition in 1987. Her was that a convic- garnering appellant promoting prostitution each revocation two to tion for cannot years prison four served solely to be concur- stand when the evidence consists conviction, rently. ap- prostitution Konopisos For the admissions the defendant. pellant given running of 13 to a sentence 16 was convicted of a house of ill prison consecutively solely testimony fame based on months to be served of two Konopisos to the sentences. This sentence men who stated that revocation maintained replaced suspended with a sen- such an establishment. 185 P. at We year probation tence of which included reversed because this evidence alone was one delicti, Casper Community corpus to establish a six-month term at insufficient (as state, trol of the existence of which is i.e., a “cat house” the existence known, the exercise of due dil- said, may “whatever that Blume Justice may known, prose- igence to the Boscketto, become be,” Wyo. Boschetto cuting attorney; and (1959)) and women “(3) holding testimony P. at 356. Recorded of a defendant staff it. 185 grand jury. application no here. The before Konopisos has appellant consists not of “(b) documents, evidence to convict books, papers, Other at defendant all but of admissions tangible objects places. Upon motion — concerning plus testimony activities of a the court order the physical type prosecuting attorney permit the defen- evidence. evidence copy photograph inspect of evidence dant type similar to the Belondon books, documents, papers, tangible ob- (Wyo.1969), P.2d 238 Casper, City of copies jects, buildings places, or or or challenged suffi appellant where the the thereof, portions are within the which ciency for of of the evidence convictions of possession, custody or control the prostitution main soliciting act of and an state, upon showing materiality of the a taining prostitution. of In Belon a house defense, preparation to the of his and don, testimony included that the evidence request Except that the is reasonable. the the directed the activities of (a)(2) provided as in this subdivision rule premises, the prostitutes, controlled and discovery does not the or in- authorize possession money. marked had of spection of memoranda or reports, other presented at 240. Sufficient evidence governmental internal documents made any rational of fact this case for finder by governmental agents connection to ele beyond find reasonable doubt the prosecution investigation with the or of necessary ments of the crime to conclude case, by the or of statements made state 6-4-103(a)(ii) that W.S. appellant violated prospective witnesses or state witnesses (iv). and (other defendant) governmen- than to the agents provided in except tal as subdivi- TO THE STATE’S EVIDENCE ACCESS (c) of sion this rule. in her Appellant contends second is “(c) production Demands state- of for prosecutor improperly sue that the denied reports ments and witnesses. of her to the State’s evidence. W.R. access “(1) After witness called the state discovery Cr.P. 18 deals with in criminal examination, has testified on direct the pertinent part: It states in matters. shall, defendant, the court on motion of “(a) statement; report of Defendant’s any produce order the state to statement tests; examinations (as defined) defendant’s hereinafter of the witness grand of jury testimony. Upon motion — possession state which the of the relates defendant, may court the order the subject as to which the witness matter permit attorney the state to the de- If entire contents has testified. the of copy inspect photo- or fendant subject the any such statement relate to graph any relevant: witness, testimony matter of of the the “(1) Written or recorded statements or it the court shall order to be delivered by the confessions made defendant or directly to for his examina- the defendant thereof, copies the possession, within tion use. state, the custody or control of the exist- “(2) If the claims that state- state known, or exer- ence of which the produced under ment ordered to be known, diligence cise due become of which subdivision contains matter does attorney; prosecuting the subject of not relate to the matter the “(2) witness, reports physical testimony of the court Results shall mental examinations and of scientific the to deliver such statement order state experiments the court in inspection tests or made connection the cam- case, Upon delivery the court particular copies with such shall the there- era. of, portions of such statement possession, custody excise within con- issued, subject appellant’s relate to the matter trial counsel admits

which do not testimony of the witness. With oversight. In absence this was due to excised, the court shall such material order, prose- an cannot find that the delivery of such statement to then direct engaged Capshaw cution in misconduct. If, pursuant for his use. the defendant any portion of such procedure, to such also advances this issue from the defendant statement is withheld maintaining prosecutor granted objects to such with- and the defendant attorney permission her trial to view the the trial is continued to the holding, and station, police evidence at the evi- guilt of the defen- adjudication of dence technician never let her see the evi- dant, statement the entire text such however, attorney, dence. Her admitted state, preserved shall be police went to the station al- appeals, event the defendant shall be she never appellate made available to the court for though she called station. evi- purpose determining the correct- dence technician recalled a call ruling judge. ness of the of the trial during attorney he invited the any statement is delivered to Whenever police inspect come to the station to rule, pursuant to this Appellant’s attorney evidence. maintained discretion, upon application court in its permission she never received over the tele- defendant, may proceedings recess in phone. attorney’s Neither the statement may the trial for such time as it deter- nor the evidence technician’s statement reasonably required mine to be for the were made under oath or in an affidavit. by examination of such statement said brings competency of either ver- preparation defendant his for its use question sion of events into and demon- confirmatory writing strates the need for “(3) comply If the state elects not to litigating procedure. within the rules of with an order of the court under subdivi- Valenzuela-Bernal, United States v. Cf. (1) (2) sion hereof to deliver to the 858, 873, 3440, 3450, 458 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 73 any such statement or such (1982). predicate L.Ed.2d 1193 We cannot direct, portion thereof as the court might transpired error on what have be- the court strike shall from the record tween the evidence technician and testimony witness and the trial attorney. Appellant lant’s has the burden proceed shall unless the court its dis- showing to make an affirmative of error. cretion shall determine that the interests Cooke, 766 Charter Loan justice require that a mistrial be de- Thrift 522, (Wyo.1988). A record clared. amounting to unsworn accusations does not “(4) The term ‘statement’ as used in sub- showing. amount to such a (1) (2) (3) divisions of this rule relating by to witness called assume, if arguendo, ap- Even we that state, means: pellant counsel’s version of these events is “(a) A written statement made said accurate, prose- we cannot find error. The signed adopted witness and or otherwise obligation permit cution was. under no him; approved by discovery Capshaw, absent an order. “(b) mechanical, stenographic, A electri- P.2d at 351. recording transcription cal or other or a thereof, substantially which is a verbatim recital of an oral statement made said ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL agent

witness an of the state and Appellant presents contemporaneously this issue as the other recorded with the making of such oral statement.” W.R. side the coin to her issue. second She Cr.P. 18. argues that if her access to the State’s prose- evidence was not attributable to the 26, 1989, appellant On June filed a motion cutor, it should be to inef- pursuant then attributable discovery. to W.R.Cr.P. 18 for however, No order discovery, was ever fective assistance of counsel. complaint filed at 94. The assistance filed. Id. Establishing ineffective 13, 1988. Trial was held on meeting two on December requires at the of counsel span days. Ap- of 301 coun October must demonstrated It tests. hearing pellant’s preliminary was moved was so deficient representation sel’s 11, January December that were so showing errors were made 1989, she waived her after functioning in that counsel was serious hearing. Thus a 15- speedy preliminary guaran the constitutional with accordance day delay is attributable to the defendant. per the deficient counsel and that tee of Mur prejudiced formance Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for 206, (Wyo.1989). 776 P.2d ray v. Wyo of the State of the District Courts 120-day from the ming contains a deadline Although appellant’s trial counsel indictment or information for filing of the dis pursued her motion for have should bringing a defendant to trial order to attempted to have the court covery and advisory trial. This rule is ensure order, preju an no demonstration issue in nature and is a factor to be considered appar of this dereliction dice as a result 774 P.2d at balancing Harvey, test. must a reasonable show ent. errors, that, counsel’s probability but for against appellant An information Fri would have been different. 13, the result January filed on 1989. She was as v. 1989. This brought to trial on October probability probability is a days. Delays A reasonable caused span is a undermine the outcome. Id. on a motion of the defendant sufficient continuances opportunity span to review the had an from this time when Counsel are subtracted Appellate delay. computing before trial. the amount of Rule State’s evidence 204(c)(3) (d)(1). as had access to this evidence counsel also appeal. In included in the record on it was May The trial was first scheduled requisite showing of to make the order 12, 1989, May appellant’s counsel 1989. On evidence something in the State’s prejudice, for, granted, and the court contin- moved a different suggest that would have 26, 1989, the filed a uance. On June State Appellant did probable. was verdict setting for a trial. The request for a bench in this evidence to point anything us to 10, the trial for October court set of a different ver suggest probability the days period 42 the from We subtract say cannot that the trial counsel’s dict. We to the date the trial was first scheduled the the prejudiced ineffectiveness request for a the State filed its date when setting. TRIAL SPEEDY Thus, the length the of time between es speedy analysis trial is well Our and the date of filing of the information balancing test for We use the tablished. appellant is 228 the trial not attributable the evaluating speedy challenges trial Subtracting 15-day delay for the days. the Supreme Court formulated United States hearing along preliminary waiver speedy U.S. 92 Wingo, v. 407 Barker continuance, 42-day delay for the with the (1972). 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. filing of the days passed 244 between (1) the requires us to look at: This test of complaint and commencement (2) delay; the reason for length of the greatly with the Har case contrasts This (3) of her delay; the defendant’s assertion delay days 531 of vey case where (4) to the defen right; prejudice to the trial or filing of an information 87, Id.; 92 Harvey dant. arrest to the days from the date of the all four factors (Wyo.1989). We consider preju “presumptively trial was found in relation to all together and them balance We do not find 774 P.2d at 94. dicial.” circumstances. Id. relevant prejudicial presumptively delay to be fur significant enough to warrant it is Length Delay 709 P.2d analysis. ther Caton also Estrada 1260, (Wyo.1985). See clock starts to speedy trial complaint is v. upon when the run arrest or Prejudice to Delay

Reason the Defendant delay is due to the court’s Prejudice key Much of the element in the is a Appel- schedule as well as the weather. balancing necessary one. test but not a arraignment delayed from Feb- lant’s Caton, Prejudice to the 709 P.2d at 1266. ruary February a total (1) lengthy pre consist Af- days, due to inclement weather. incarceration, (2) anxiety, pretrial setting request filed its for a ter the State (3) impairment Harvey, of the defense. June, the court scheduled a trial for delay 774 P.2d at 96. exceeds a Unless stacking trials. due to its for bench October point probability where there is a sub delays for these two are neu- The reasons prejudice, ap stantial the burden is on tral, weight than a so we accord it less pellant length prejudice. to show Id. The deliberately been delay which would have delay length of the here is the same about Estrada, 611 P.2d at caused the State. as it was in 709 P.2d at 1264. The Catón. request came after State’s length delay is not the 18 months right jury to a trial. The lant waived her preju presumptively which we found to be record indicates that a trial could have in Harvey. dicial 774 P.2d at 97. The been scheduled sooner. We will take this appellant preju burden is on the to show balancing into account in our as well. We dice. diligence part also find no lack of on the Appellant apparently argues that prosecution. contrasts to the Har- prejudice only delay caused even the State conceded vey case where pretrial anxiety type. She claims that delay that much of the had no reasonable awaiting trial, while she was to find unable at 94. explanation. 774 P.2d job impaired ability her to care for daughter her and mother. The record does Rights Assertion Her Defendant’s fact, not bear this out. the record indi- necessary Although it is not that a defen- cates that continued involvement trial in dant assert the sentencing, with the escort service until her violation, order to find a it is a pool ran a hall which was shut down for proper relevant and factor to consider. unlicensed, being attempted to start a Appellant Harvey, 774 P.2d at 95. has had hair salon business. fails to the benefit of counsel since she was burden, carry delay and we find the distinguish charged. We between asser- prejudice. caused her no right without tions of made benefit of counsel and ones made with the benefit of Balancing Estrada, counsel. 611 P.2d at 855. Although delayed, her trial was the rea- Appellant raised the issue first on the delay sons for the not to her attributable

morning of her trial when she moved for Appellant vigorously are neutral. did not speedy a lack dismissal because of of a trial, right speedy assert her to a and al- Appellant right trial. did not assert her though counsel, she had the benefit of she when the court scheduled the trial. The pressed setting. never for an earlier She appellant urged trial court stated that had prejudice in has no setting June that the October was too shown caused the de- late, adjusted lay. then court would have its These considerations lead us to con- setting. schedule to accommodate an earlier appellant’s right speedy clude that Appellant renewed her motion after the not trial was violated. rested its State case. asserted raised, Finding no in the error issues this vigorously less than did the case is

lant in P.2d Robinson v. Affirmed. Robinson, In pressed speedy issue two weeks URBIGKIT, Justice, concurring. Chief put before Id. at 171. We little weight Robinson; opinion on in the and decision of this factor in I concur place majority, except even less here. I remain concerned on Captions 401. filed documents. the Uniform of the ineffectiveness about State District Courts 402. of statutes. Citation Rules is like a ineffectiveness Wyoming. This and of 403. Format of briefs instruc- by nonenforcement. spreads tions. disease Preparation of orders. 404. the administration of under Interrogatories. 501. Harnsberger, Harry S. Justice Chief depositions. 502. Audio-visual adopted the Supreme Court

Wyoming practice. 601. Pretrial Procedure which were of Criminal Rules rules, jurors. patterned after federal but 701. dire of Voir generally addition, included, Rule in 52: interrogation. 702. Juror 801. decorum. Courtroom Wyoming Judicial Conference make amend rules time to time from 802. of conference calls. Use in the district courts governing practice recording equipment by 803. Use Wyoming Rules not inconsistent with counsel. applicable or stat- Criminal Procedure 901. Sanctions. Copies rules and amendments utes. under 902. Cases advisement. shall, upon promulgation, their so made Disposition of exhibits. Supreme Court. furnished to be strong perception regarding have a Conference, cre- Wyoming Judicial If Rules for the District Courts. Uniform partici- initially agreement ated advisory only, one their number is then composed is was then and now pants, advisory. advisory, If such as all are judges district members trial, speedy they can neither effective Court; today, Wyoming Supreme limiting for benefit nor for restriction and Supreme judges five district if Rule 204 supervision. Specifically, seventeen explaina- reasons not District Courts on justices. For Uniform Rules Court history purgato- exists somewhere any understanda- trials written ble case, status, ry advisory as as we now state real independent ble every category of the Uni- then each and the Uni- judges, of the district perceived, form Rules for the District Courts is advis- Courts, unlike Rules for the District form ory might mean. I can- whatever that rules, not receive any other state court do advisory conceptualize rules to be court Supreme direct Court consideration either of the other on either require approval for effectiveness. its subjects analy- My addressed. review and Rules for the District The Uniform Phillips sis as stated form, Courts, present address the follow- Justice, spe- (Wyo.1989),Urbigkit, ing subjects: cially concurring, Harvey Rule No. Justice, Urbigkit, (Wyo.1989), Appearances. concurring, unchanged. specially remain Appearance and 102. withdrawal if I am concern that then led further counsel. Wyoming depend cannot on the citizens of operation- adopted 201. Continuances. efficacy of our court rules, judi- is al what then there about limits. 202. Time justifiable for process cial that is trust Default; pros- 203. dismissal for lack is king’s-X aptitude A not ac- reliance? ecution. ceptable me because it leaves indeter- to Speedy 204. there rules actu- minate are which whether Filing motions. impose ally provide obli- benefits Filing discovery documents. litigants gations upon lawyers advisory concepts 303. Proof of service. for whatever only or are purpose they then serve. 304. Official court files. orders, demands, prac- Regarding the constitutional and

305. Form of trial, are, of a there notices of motion. tical issues question exceptions without ates a and within realistic method to calculate total provided lapsed Rules compliance. Rule 204 of the Uniform time for rule Conse- Courts, quently, request District state court criminal as in this case where the being trials that tried and seasonably reassignment can and are was made for not completed fact, by to this is the by verdict. defense counsel but the state’s universal, predominate, attorney, if not the status duty would assess a further today Phillips objection anxiety after the shock of and Har- immediate if about the vey has been defused. This court has at rescheduled date is to be converted into responsibility this time either appeal. the moral issues for claimed error on required do what is to make Uniform It be that Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for the District firm and en- Courts Rules for the District Courts would be im- repeal forceable or to rescind and what proved by flexibility provision providing trap otherwise becomes a and snare for the for a excep- reasonable extension of time unsophisticated litigant. tion to accommodate crowded dockets after I concur in requested this case because it can be initial extension by is either liti- per- gant. established that the extensions of time I do not need to reach such an however, satisfactorily exception here, mitted were within the 120- when no resched- day application request time frame so that by ule was made Osborne after the schedule followed did not Rule 204 obviously violate initial continuance extended the of the Uniform Rules for the District time. It is not sufficient to establish a rule Despain Courts. 774 P.2d 77 progression violation if the resched- uling request prosecutor is left to the after gets and, defense counsel first the delay I find in the factual events three circum- rescheduled, even when object does not on stances satisfy my concern about the “speedy trial” succeeding basis to the timeliness of the trial. There was a weath- assignment. delay er rescheduling arraignment, on Id., and then the requesting case itself was set for After through a continuance May 15, counsel, trial on clearly which was independent duty within I find an on Os time. by That scheduled date was struck responsible a borne to requesting request who, or, of Osborne’s counsel at the assignment rescheduled trial even with request, time of the case, did not seek a resched- in the facts of this to note immediate Rescheduling uled date. objection left to the when the next set trial date is prosecutor followed-up who to ask delayed by for trial the trial agenda. court’s I do reassignment. intend, Trial was then by my scheduled advocacy adamancy for October which fit within the about Rule 204 of the Uniform Rules for trial court’s schedule for bench trial cases. the District Courts and the constitutional n expeditious hearing No request was made obligation of the trial provide court trial, Osborne or her counsel after the contin- impress expeditious pro request granted uance the trial cessing only upon the prose trial court or cution, court. since I equivalent believe that an responsibility rests with Osborne and her In the justice due administration of ex- counsel. Robinson v. 627 P.2d 168 ception interjected by request for con- (Wyo.1981), majority, as cited counsel, tinuance made Osborne’s Rule persuasive in responsibility to me of Os 204(d)(2)(iii)of the Uniform Rules for the implied if repeal concept, borne even District Courts respon- leaves more for the see Estrada v. (Wyo. P.2d 850 sibility of just Osborne’s counsel than 1980), totally unacceptable. Common initially obtain a trial I continuance. would sense and reasonableness should attend tri perceive prosecution if either or de- scheduling problems al court where an ini requests continuance, fense applying required tial continuance is in the interest party should have the timely immediate or justice. responsibility arrange for a rescheduled trial date. expeditious That request per- stops When counted time action of mits the provide defendant, trial court to again for a contin- it should start exer- uum of the sequence responsibility and cre- cised affirmative of the de- course, reason within fendant; only, of and the the trial court both thereafter since rule recognize the also should

prosecutor only days is extended of 120 intent exceptions. application

justified serves including participants, all

system, speedy trial interest of obligation and community, but only the benefits which Likewise, other twen- the victims. also society and rules serve both uniform

ty-five expe- fair and in the search for

participants justice.

ditious spirit that purpose both conclude Rule 204 of Uniform applied text of was not vio- District Courts

Rules passed intervening time by the lated rescinded, was held. Until the trial

before effectively fully and rule should be I concur with the Consequently,

enforced.

affirming decision. WHEATLAND, OF TOWN (Plaintiff), Short; FARMS, INC.; Del M.C.

BELLIS Landen; Landen; Allen L. H. Jean mar Cook; Cook; Thomas R. A. Carol Burns; Burns; County A. Barbara Platte, Wyoming; Jesse Jen State of Wilhelm; Wilhelm; kins; Janet John Wilhelm; Wilhelm; Cheryl

James Omaha, Appel Land Bank of Federal (Defendants). lees INC.; Short; FARMS, Al M.C.

BELLIS Cook; Cook; A. Jesse Jen len L. Carol Wilhelm; Wilhelm; kins; Janet John Wilhelm, Wilhelm; Cheryl James (Defendants), Appellants WHEATLAND,

The TOWN OF (Plaintiff). Appellee 89-180, 89-181.

Nos. Wyoming.

Supreme Court

Feb.

Case Details

Case Name: Osborne v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 11, 1991

Citation: 806 P.2d 272

Docket Number: 90-66 to 90-68

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.