No. 19-999
Response Waived
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-prosecution due-process first-amendment free-speech jury-instruction obscenity overbreadth speech-conduct stalking-statute
Latest Conference:
2020-03-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether, in a prosecution for writing obscene letters, a trial court should instruct a jury regarding the legal definition of the term "obscene" as set forth in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973)?
2. Whether a prosecution based on the content of mailed letters is a crime of conduct; or is it a crime of speech, or both conduct and speech, thereby implicating the defendant's First Amendment rights?
3. Whether the Wyoming Stalking Statute, W.S. § 6-2-506, is constitutionally overbroad, either facially or as-applied to the facts of this case?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a trial court should instruct a jury on the legal definition of 'obscene' in a prosecution for writing obscene letters
Docket Entries
2020-03-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.
2020-02-12
Waiver of right of respondent State of Wyoming to respond filed.
2020-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 11, 2020)
Attorneys
Lewis Alan Dugan
Jonathan William Foreman — Office of the State Public Defender, Petitioner
State of Wyoming
Jenny Lynn Craig — Office of the Wyoming Attorney General, Respondent