Prosecutor Says Wyoming Wolf ‘Capture’ Rule Doesn’t Apply To Cody Roberts

Sublette County’s top prosecutor argued Tuesday in a Daniel, Wyoming, man’s case of alleged wolf torture that state law doesn’t give a “blanket” license to treat predators cruelly. 

Sublette County Attorney Clayton Melinkovich’s Tuesday filing in Sublette County District Court is a response to the Dec. 19 argument by Cody Roberts’ attorney Robert Piper of Coal Creek Law. 

Piper is urging District Court Judge Richard Lavery to dismiss the felony animal cruelty charge Roberts faces.

Roberts is accused of running over a gray wolf with a snowmobile and taping the injured animal’s mouth shut with tape, then taking it into a bar before shooting it in late February 2024. 

Piper’s argument points to an exception to the version of Wyoming law that was in place at the time of the alleged crime.

That law bars prosecutors from bringing animal cruelty charges for “the hunting capture, killing or destruction of any predatory animal, pest or other wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.”

‘Capture’ Or Cruelty?

Piper accused Melinkovich of using circular reasoning and of prosecuting Roberts despite the incident unfolding amid his “capture” of the wolf. 

Melinkovich did not bring the charge against Roberts himself: a grand jury did in August. 

But Melinkovich is now tasked with taking the case to a trial, unless it is settled or dismissed by other means. 

The prosecutor in his Tuesday response wrote that his theory of the case fits within both the law and its exemption.

“Each of these words in the (exception) relates to the overall activity of finding an animal, catching it, and killing it, something that is commonly done to predators, wildlife (game) and pests,” wrote Melinkovich. 

“Nowhere in the common understanding of the words used by the Legislature in the statute includes a ‘blanket’ or ‘complete’ license to engage in actions or omissions whereby the malicious infliction of pain is caused or the suffering of an animal is maliciously allowed to continue,” he adds.

The prosecutor asserted that the exception doesn’t cover Roberts’ alleged conduct; that the incident wasn’t an aberration of the wolf’s capture, but a separate crime. 

“The State has not asserted a criminal charge against the Defendant for the alleged capture and alleged killing or destruction of the animal,” the response says."However, the Defendant stands charged with conduct that is otherwise prohibited by law.” 

If the exception rendered a blanket license to all actions unfolding after an animal capture, argued Melinkovich, then it could legalize intentionally beating or starving captured predators, or torturing them in other ways. 

“Such a conclusion is an absurdity,” he wrote. 

Melinkovich’s theory of the case is that Roberts, by keeping the wolf in the bar and taunting it when it was allegedly injured — rather than getting it care or putting it down prior — Roberts tortured it.

The prosecutor has pointed to a Wyoming legal definition including acts of omission and neglect in the term “torment.” 

‘Scorn Does Not Deprive Him…’

Piper’s Dec. 19 filing, conversely, says Melinkovich’s reading of the words in the exception is so narrow, and his reading of the criminal charge itself so far-reaching, that it would stretch the law and commit the Wyoming legal taboo of rendering some legal language absurd. 

The defense attorney noted the massive international publicity Roberts’ interaction with the wolf has generated.

“That a defendant’s alleged conduct is unpopular or draws scorn does not deprive him of the fundamental right to be placed on notice of the accusations against him,” Piper wrote. “Nor does it negate the specificity requirements of the United States and Wyoming constitutions.”

Those on “the wrong side of popular sentiment”instead "require those procedural safeguards even more,” Piper wrote.

He also disputes whether Roberts ran over the wolf with a snowmobile, saying a witness may say otherwise. 

He asked Lavery to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it could not be brought again.

Lavery has scheduled a hearing on this clash of theories for Jan. 28. 

Meanwhile …

Meanwhile, Piper on Dec. 22 filed four motions asking the judge to bar certain evidence from the trial pool. 

Three of those claim:

• That the evidence indicates the prosecutor will question a “surrogate” witness about the wolf pelt analysis who can’t be confronted on the actual wolf pelt analysis.

• That the evidence indicates the prosecutor will ask witnesses to opine on the wolf’s medical state, despite those people not being experts on the topic of internal/invisible wolf injuries.

• That the evidence indicates the prosecutor will ask Wyoming Game and Fish Department wildlife ecologist and wolf management expert Ken Mills to opine on the wolf’s condition — from a video shot within the bar rather than from his own direct experience with the wolf. 

Piper asks that Lavery disallow these maneuvers, if they’re happening. 

His fourth motion asks that, as a precaution, Lavery should forbid any talk at trial of Roberts’ prior, potentially bad conduct in life not related to this case. 

Melinkovich had not responded to those motions as of Wednesday. 

Roberts’ trial is set for March 9.

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