Why It Took 18 Months And A Grand Jury Indictment To Charge Cody Roberts

For the top prosecutor in Sublette County to secure a conviction of the Daniel, Wyoming, man accused of tormenting a wolf last February before killing it, he’ll have to walk a tightrope of legal provisions and exceptions.

Sublette County Attorney Clayton Melinkovich in June requested a grand jury in the case of Cody Roberts, who is accused of running over a wolf with a snowmobile, bringing it injured into a bar, tormenting and taunting it, then shooting it.

That was in February 2024. Nearly 18 months later, the grand jury on Wednesday called for Roberts’ indictment on a charge of felony cruelty to animals. That’s punishable by up to two years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

Roberts’ attorney Elisabeth Trefonas did not immediately respond to a Thursday voicemail request for comment.

Why Not Earlier?

The incident with the wolf exploded into international headlines, sparking outrage across the globe from sportsmen and animal rights activists, and it put both the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Wyoming’s wildlife management laws under a microscope.

Melinkovich had sought to wage a more serious prosecution in the case last year, but struggled with the evidence he had at the time, he told Cowboy State Daily in a Thursday phone interview.

“It took so long because evidence needed to be processed,” Melinkovich said. “We finally got all the evidence back from processing in November.”

He didn’t think it made sense to undertake grand jury proceedings over the holidays, he said.

As January turned to February, an alleged compound bow murder diverted his focus, Melinkovich added.

“I sent an email to (Sublette County Sheriff) KC Lehr in the morning asking him what days he was available so I could work on getting the grand jury summoned,” said the prosecutor, “and that afternoon we learned Dakota Farley had been killed.”

Farley, 23, was shot in his own living room overnight Feb. 2, court documents say. An arrow pierced his arm, his aorta and his trachea, killing him, according to court testimony.

Two Big Piney teens, Rowan Littauer and Orion Schlesinger, were charged with first-degree murder variations in Farley’s death. They’re both awaiting second-opinion evaluations of whether they were sane enough at the time of the incident to rationalize their conduct.

Melinkovich at first considered, then abandoned the pursuit of a death penalty case against the teens.

Both cases stalled this summer amid mental health evaluations, reaching what Melinkovich called “the point in those prosecutions where I felt comfortable enough that I could give the appropriate attention to the grand jury.”

He requested the grand jury in June, and it convened in the second and third weeks of August, Melinkovich said in his Wednesday statement on the true bill.

Doxxed

As to why he called the grand jury rather than launching a charge on his own probable cause narrative of the evidence, Melinkovich indicated there wasn’t enough evidence for that.

The investigation had stalled prior because people didn’t want to talk to law enforcement, he said.

“I speculate that (silence) is because of such national and international pressure, and people’s fear of being doxed if people knew they knew information — or were (in the bar) that night,” said Melinkovich.

Witnesses generally don’t have to talk to law enforcement. But a grand jury can subpoena people and make them talk, with some Constitution-based exceptions.

He declined to say whether those reticent sources produced the missing pieces this month, saying that would disclose the confidential grand jury witness testimony.  

The Tightrope

Roberts paid $250 last March toward a citation for violating Wyoming Game and Fish regulations against possessing wildlife, in the wolf incident.

Though already penalized, Roberts can still be charged with a different law for the same conduct — if the newer charge differs enough in its elements from the citation to satisfy a judge that Roberts’ right against double jeopardy isn’t being violated.

In its 2025 legislative session, the state Legislature passed a law criminalizing cruelty to wildlife.

But prior to that, the state already had a felony animal cruelty law on the books, which was routinely charged in cases involving domestic animals. But it also applies when anyone “knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering, beats with cruelty, tortures, torments or mutilates an animal.”

There are exceptions to that provision. Namely, an exception for: “The hunting, capture, killing or destruction of any predatory animal, pest or other wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.”

Backing Up …

Looking first to the ban on animal cruelty, it forbids torturing and tormenting an animal knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering.

Wyoming law renders  “torture” and “torment” interchangeable by lumping them into the same definition. 

The state’s criminal laws define both terms as “every act, omission or neglect whereby the willful and malicious infliction of pain or suffering is caused, permitted or allowed to continue when there is a reasonable remedy or relief.”

So, a person can cause torment by his actions, or by not acting to stop “malicious infliction of pain or suffering.”

Invoke The Exception

Roberts may invoke the exception that keeps fur trappers and other sportsmen out of the state’s jails ­­­— the carveout for the hunting, capture, killing or destruction of predatory animals, pests or wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.

The prosecutor cannot point to Roberts’ prior conviction for illegally possessing wildlife as proof that his conduct was “prohibited by law,” since that conviction is technically a misfit.

Roberts’ fine went toward an unlawful wildlife possession rule that doesn’t ban predator possession.

The crux of the argument is whether Roberts’ alleged torment of the animal fits under the exception’s four verbs: “hunting, capture, killing or destruction” — or whether the alleged torment happened during some other act.

That’s a question for a trial jury or, if the case settles in a plea agreement, for Roberts himself.

What’s Next?

Roberts is not in jail.

Often when a person is charged with a felony, he’s arrested right before or right as the charge is being filed. Then he can dispute whether the prosecutor has probable cause to pursue a felony case. Then, he can give his plea and fight the case in the felony-level court.

But with a grand jury indictment, the case files directly in the felony-level court and skips the usual, more adversarial probable cause hearing.

That means the defendant’s attorney doesn’t get the chance to dispute the probable cause finding. Her war starts on the tougher battleground of defending against “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

District Court Judge Kate McKay (primarily a Sublette County judge whose district also spans Fremont and Teton counties) conflicted out of the case ahead of grand jury proceedings, said Melinkovich.

Sweetwater County District Court Judge Richard Lavery oversaw the grand jury proceedings. He’s assigned to the case moving forward, the prosecutor added.

Lavery is opting to issue a summons for Roberts to appear for his arraignment, which could happen sometime between late September and November, Melinkovich said. That summons is in lieu of the more aggressive option, issuing an arrest warrant.

It was Lavery’s choice not to pursue Roberts’ arrest, but Melinkovich didn’t object to it, the prosecutor said.

Roberts has longstanding ties to the area and hasn’t left town to date, Melinkovich noted. That’s a nod to one of the major factors underpinning arrest and bond considerations in Wyoming courts: a person’s likelihood of fleeing justice.

The other factor courts consider is the risk of harm the defendant poses to the community if left out of jail.

Into The Fray

When Roberts appears at his arraignment this fall, he can give one of a few different plea variations that fall into the basic dichotomy of guilty or not guilty.

It is extremely rare for Wyoming felony defendants to plead guilty at their first arraignment.

Almost universally, they plead not guilty and buy time to prepare for trial or negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecutor.

Sometimes defendants plead “not guilty by reason of mental illness,” leading to mental health evaluations. That not-guilty variation is also tested at trial if the case doesn’t settle, albeit under different legal standards.

If Roberts is acquitted, he will go free.

If he's convicted, the court will order an investigation into his character and history, then sentence him under the law, or under the terms of a plea agreement, if there is one.

Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.