Not Guilty in the ‘Wolf in the Bar’ Case: Wyoming Man Denies Felony Cruelty Charge

The original story by Andrea Lutz  for Q2 Montana’s News Leader.

A Daniel, Wyoming man at the center of a viral “wolf in the bar” incident pleaded not guilty Monday to a felony animal-cruelty charge, setting up a closely watched court fight over a case that’s ignited outrage far beyond Sublette County.

Prosecutors say Cody Roberts paraded an injured, muzzled wolf through the Green River Bar earlier this year, then shot the animal afterward. In his first appearance, Roberts entered the plea remotely from Laramie during an arraignment held in Sweetwater County District Court in Rock Springs. The charge stems from a Feb. 29, 2024 episode, with a grand jury handing up an indictment on Aug. 20.

Court filings and local reporting outline a disturbing sequence: a wolf allegedly struck by a snowmobile, its muzzle bound with tape, a shock collar and GPS tracker attached, and the animal carried into a bar where video shows a man leaning down to kiss it as it lay on the floor. The footage triggered an instant firestorm — both for the treatment of the animal and for what critics say are gaps in Wyoming law when it comes to wolves.

If convicted on the felony count, Roberts faces up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 under state statute. That potential penalty has become part of the public debate, with animal-welfare advocates arguing it’s out of step with the severity of the allegations and calling for stronger deterrents. The case has also reopened an uncomfortable policy conversation in Wyoming: across much of the state, wolves are classified as predators, a status critics say leaves them outside the “standard” cruelty protections that cover pets and livestock. Supporters of tighter rules argue that classification should not translate into a free pass for abuse.

Roberts’ plea means the case now moves into the slower, more technical phase of the criminal process — motions, discovery, and the sorting of what evidence a jury would ultimately see. A judge will also set the ground rules for any expert testimony, including veterinary or wildlife management perspectives that could shape how jurors understand the animal’s condition and the events in that barroom. While the not-guilty plea is routine at this stage, the courtroom is likely to be anything but: animal-rights groups have vowed to monitor every step, and local residents — many of them hunters and ranchers — are following along, too, for what it might signal about future enforcement.

For now, the next date on the calendar is March 9 in the Ninth Judicial District Court. Between now and then, expect a tug-of-war over the facts and the law: what, exactly, happened between the alleged snowmobile strike and the shooting; whether the state’s predator classification matters to the cruelty charge; and how Wyoming’s statutes handle an incident that blends wildlife management, barroom bravado, and a viral video no one can unsee.

What’s clear is that this is no longer just a local scandal. It’s a test case — of Wyoming’s animal-cruelty framework, of how the state treats wolves outside protected zones, and of whether the punishment on the books matches a public that’s asking, loudly, for something tougher.