Mullin v. Wyoming
Headline: Young man’s challenge to being tried twice for the same whiskey theft is blocked as the Court denies review, leaving Wyoming’s separate misdemeanor and felony convictions in place.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for certiorari, leaving Wyoming’s separate misdemeanor and felony prosecutions and convictions intact despite the claim they came from the same theft.
- Leaves the misdemeanor and felony convictions in place in Wyoming.
- Permits the State’s separate prosecutions for related acts in this case.
- Preserves the Wyoming court’s rejection of the claim against being tried twice.
Summary
Background
A young man and three friends saw a case of whiskey put into a truck. He encouraged another person, who had not seen the placement, to take the case. That person later removed the whiskey and passed bottles to the group, and the young man received three bottles. He was first convicted in a local justice court for being a minor in possession of alcohol and later convicted in a county court of encouraging a felony theft.
Reasoning
The core question was whether those two prosecutions — the local misdemeanor and the later felony charge — improperly subjected the young man to being tried twice for the same incident. The Supreme Court denied the petition asking for review, so it did not rule on the constitutional question. Because review was denied, the Wyoming courts’ decisions rejecting the man’s claim that he was tried twice remain in force, and the State’s separate prosecutions stand as affirmed.
Real world impact
As a result of the denial, both the earlier possession conviction and the later felony conviction remain effective in this case. The Court’s action does not resolve the broader legal debate about whether related charges must be tried together; that issue was argued by the dissent but not decided by the full Court. The denial leaves the state-court outcome intact for this defendant while the constitutional question remains unsettled at the national level.
Dissents or concurrances
Three Justices dissented from the denial and said the case should have been taken up and reversed. They argued that the Constitution’s protection against being tried twice for the same act applies to the States and would have required the State to try related charges together.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?