Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2007 WY 202

By Meg

Summary of Decision issued December 18, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Dunsmore v. Dunsmore

Citation: 2007 WY 202

Docket Number: 06-263

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Mitchell E. Osborn, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Phillip White, Jr., Laramie, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion by rescinding the order allowing Father?s witnesses to testify by telephone at the time of trial (thereby excluding witnesses and evidence regarding the methamphetamine use of Mother and the exposure of the parties? minor child to the drug). Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Father?s motion for a continuance after the Court rescinded its order allowing his witnesses to testify by telephone. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to keep the record open in order for Father to submit deposition testimony form the witnesses that were not allowed to testify by telephone.

Facts/Discussion: Father seeks review of a decree divorcing him from Mother contending the district court erred when it rescinded its Order Allowing Telephonic Testimony, denied Father?s Motion to Continue, and denied Father?s request to keep the record open so that Father could present deposition testimony.
Standard of Review: The Court will not overturn a decision of the trial court unless they are convinced that it constitutes an abuse of discretion or violates some legal principle.
Telephonic Testimony: In Wyoming, telephonic testimony is allowed in limited circumstances as stated in W.R.C.P. Rule 43(a). The court signed the order allowing telephonic testimony and later they rescinded it after considering Mother?s objection. Taking into consideration both attorneys? arguments, the court?s commentary, and the resulting hearing from the record, the Court held that the district court could reasonably have reached the conclusion to rescind the order.
Motion to Continue: The granting of a continuance is among those matters within the trial judge?s discretion. The matter had been pending for quite some time in district court. The Court noted their decision in Byrd v. Mahaffey where they stated that a continuance will be granted only upon good cause and will deny a continuance where the problem which gives rise to the request is the fault of the movant. In the instant case, the record reflected the conflicts were due to Father keeping his son against court order, that at least one continuance had been granted due to scheduling conflicts and that his motion for telephonic testimony was filed only 5 days before trial.
Keeping the Record Open: The issue was presented without cogent argument or citation to pertinent authority. The Court did not consider the issue because Father failed to comply with appellate rules.

Holding: The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rescinding the order to allow witnesses to testify telephonically or by denying Father?s Motion to Continue. The Court did not give substantive consideration to Father?s subsequent request to keep the record open because it was not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2h4cfr .

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on January 03, 2008 (boomark / email).