The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a felony theft conviction on January 26, 2026, rejecting an appellant's challenge to the district court's evidentiary ruling in *Mathew Judd Titmus v. The State of Wyoming*.
Chief Justice Boomgaarden, writing for the court, held that the District Court of Uinta County did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that foundation had not been properly laid for a defense exhibit. The ruling forced defendant Mathew Judd Titmus to testify to establish that foundation during his trial.
The case centered on the October 2023 theft of a skid steer tractor owned by John Ricky Rosser. Rosser discovered that the fence surrounding his business yard had been cut and the lock on his gate had been removed. His distinctive orange and yellow skid steer tractor, which featured a custom hydraulic scale system he had installed, was missing from the secured area.
The tractor held significant value for Rosser, who had purchased it in 2007 and made substantial improvements over the years. The distinctive coloring and custom hydraulic scale system made the equipment easily identifiable, factors that likely proved crucial in the prosecution's case.
At trial, Titmus's defense team sought to introduce an exhibit, but the district court ruled that proper evidentiary foundation had not been established. Under Wyoming Rules of Evidence, parties must lay adequate foundation before exhibits can be admitted into evidence. This typically requires showing the exhibit's relevance, authenticity, and connection to the case.
When the district court found insufficient foundation for the defense exhibit, Titmus was compelled to take the witness stand himself to attempt to establish the necessary foundation. This tactical situation potentially exposed Titmus to cross-examination by prosecutors, creating strategic disadvantages for the defense.
On appeal, Titmus argued that the district court abused its discretion in making this evidentiary ruling. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviews such decisions under an abuse of discretion standard, meaning appellate courts will not reverse unless the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond the bounds of reason.
The Supreme Court's five-justice panel, consisting of Chief Justice Boomgaarden and Justices Gray, Fenn, Jarosh, and Hill, unanimously found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. The opinion, designated as 2026 WY 15, represents the court's first published criminal decision of the new year.
Titmus was represented on appeal by the State Public Defender's office, including Brandon T. Booth, Kirk A. Morgan, and Jeremy Meerkreebs. The state's case was handled by Attorney General Keith G. Kautz's office, with Deputy Attorney General Jenny L. Craig leading a team that included Senior Assistant Attorney General Kristen R. Jones and Assistant Attorney General Kristine D. Rude.
The case originated in Uinta County, where Judge James C. Kaste presided over the trial proceedings. Uinta County, located in southwestern Wyoming, includes the city of Evanston near the Utah border.
While the Supreme Court's published opinion does not detail the specific nature of the defense exhibit or the foundation issues that arose, the ruling reinforces the importance of proper evidentiary procedures in criminal trials. Defense attorneys must carefully establish foundation for exhibits through appropriate witness testimony or other evidence before courts will admit such materials.
The decision also highlights the tactical considerations defense counsel face when foundation rulings go against them. The requirement that Titmus testify to establish foundation potentially waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and exposed him to prosecution cross-examination.
Felony theft convictions in Wyoming carry serious consequences, including potential prison time and significant fines. The conviction will remain on Titmus's criminal record following the Supreme Court's affirmance.
The opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third, the official reporter for Wyoming Supreme Court decisions. The court requested notification of any typographical or formatting errors before final publication.
This case demonstrates the Wyoming Supreme Court's continued deference to trial court discretion in evidentiary matters. Unless trial judges clearly exceed the bounds of reasonable judgment, appellate courts typically will not second-guess their rulings on evidence admission and foundation requirements.
The decision provides guidance to criminal defense attorneys about the importance of thorough preparation for exhibit foundation and the potential consequences when such preparation proves inadequate at trial.