The Wyoming Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Byron W. Pinegar, Jr., for making terroristic threats and stalking his probation officer. This ruling, issued on May 18, 2026, confirms the original jury's findings and highlights the importance of maintaining public safety in the face of threats. The case, filed under docket number S-25-0112, stems from Pinegar's alarming behavior toward his former probation officer, which included a series of threatening text messages and a menacing phone call.

The court's decision is significant not only for Pinegar, who faces a sentence of 32 to 36 months for the terroristic threat conviction and an additional 162 to 180 days for stalking, but also for the broader implications it has for the legal system's handling of threats and the conduct of judicial proceedings. This case underscores the seriousness with which such threats are treated under Wyoming law.

Background

Byron W. Pinegar, Jr. was placed on intensive supervised probation in 2010 after committing a crime against a former girlfriend. Part of his probation included restrictions on contacting certain individuals, including this girlfriend. After completing his probation, Pinegar had no further contact with the probation system for nearly a decade. However, in 2020, he began sending daily text messages to his former probation officer, expressing anger and resentment over personal issues, including the loss of his girlfriend.

In November 2022, Pinegar escalated his behavior by calling 911 and making threatening remarks about his probation officer. This culminated in a series of text messages in December 2022, where he explicitly threatened to kill the probation officer and his family. The probation officer, feeling threatened, reported these incidents to law enforcement, prompting an investigation that led to Pinegar's arrest and subsequent trial.

The trial took place in December 2024, where the jury found Pinegar guilty on two counts: making terroristic threats and stalking. Pinegar appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge had committed misconduct during jury selection and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for making a terroristic threat.

The Ruling

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled against Pinegar on both counts of his appeal. Regarding the alleged judicial misconduct, the court found that the trial judge's inquiries into a prospective juror's bias did not constitute misconduct. The judge's role during voir dire, the jury selection process, is to ensure that jurors can render a fair and impartial verdict. The court noted, “The judge had an obligation to inquire into the potential bias before excusing the juror for cause.”

On the issue of evidence sufficiency, the court affirmed that there was enough evidence to support the jury's decision. The court explained that Pinegar's actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the potential consequences of his threats. They stated, “Based on his actions and messages in November and December 2022, the testimony supports the jury’s verdict that Mr. Pinegar consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of causing the evacuation of the probation office.”

Impact

This ruling reinforces the legal system's commitment to addressing threats of violence seriously. The court's decision highlights the importance of maintaining public safety, especially in cases involving probation officers and other public servants. By upholding the conviction, the Wyoming Supreme Court sends a clear message that threats, whether made directly or through electronic communication, will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate legal consequences.

The court's ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving claims of judicial misconduct during voir dire. By affirming the trial judge's actions, the court emphasizes the importance of a judge's role in ensuring a fair trial while also allowing for necessary inquiries into juror biases. This could influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of jury selection and the conduct of judges during trials.

What's Next

Pinegar's conviction can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision is typically the final word in state cases. There are no related cases pending that would affect this ruling directly, but the implications of this case may influence future legal interpretations of terroristic threats and judicial conduct in Wyoming.