Wolf Case Twist: Cody Roberts Asks Judge to Toss Felony Cruelty Charge, Says Prosecutors Are Bending the Rules

The original story by Clair McFarland for Cowboy State Daily.

Cody Roberts, the Daniel man accused of injuring a wolf with a snowmobile, hauling it into a bar and later killing it, is asking a judge to throw out the felony animal cruelty charge against him — arguing the state is stretching Wyoming law to make the case fit.

A grand jury indicted Roberts in August on felony animal cruelty, a charge that carries up to two years in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

Sublette County Attorney Clayton Melinkovich is prosecuting under the idea that Roberts knowingly tortured or tormented the wolf “with the intent to cause death or undue suffering.”

But in a Dec. 2 court filing, Melinkovich leans on a specific angle: the “torment” wasn’t just something Roberts allegedly did — it was something he allegedly failed to stop. In other words, the prosecutor argues Roberts maliciously allowed the wolf’s suffering to continue, and that Wyoming’s definition of torment can include acts of omission as well as overt abuse.

Roberts’ attorney, Robert Piper of Coal Creek Law in Cheyenne, fired back with a Dec. 15 motion asking Sweetwater County District Court Judge Richard Lavery to dismiss the case.

(Yes, Sweetwater — even though the case is out of Sublette County. Lavery is serving as a stand-in after another judge conflicted out.)

Piper’s main argument is pretty blunt: Wyoming’s animal cruelty statute includes a clear exception.

He points to Wyoming Statute 6-3-1008, which says the animal cruelty laws can’t be read to prohibit “the hunting, capture, killing or destruction of any predatory animal, pest or other wildlife in any manner not otherwise prohibited by law.”

And here’s the key part of his claim: gray wolves outside trophy-game areas count as “predatory animals” under Wyoming law, he wrote — and the state hasn’t alleged anything about this happening in a trophy-game zone.

Piper argues the state is trying to use a loophole to erase the exception. His take: prosecutors are saying Roberts’ conduct violates the “broad prohibition” on tormenting animals, then using that violation to claim the predator exception doesn’t apply because it’s “otherwise unlawful.”

That kind of logic, Piper says, becomes circular — and if it’s accepted, the predator/pest exception becomes “completely meaningless and absurd,” which Wyoming courts have warned against when interpreting statutes.

Piper also flags the massive attention the incident has drawn since it allegedly happened in late February 2024.

Even if the public is furious, he argues, that doesn’t change the rules: “unpopular” conduct still doesn’t strip a defendant of constitutional protections like being clearly put on notice of what law he allegedly broke.

He’s asking the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it couldn’t be refiled. Alternatively, he wants a hearing where both sides can argue it out in person.

Piper also includes a “just in case you disagree” section: even if the judge finds the law ambiguous, Piper says Wyoming courts generally resolve unclear criminal statutes in favor of the defendant, which would still sink the indictment.

And he hints at a separate fight over the facts. While sources previously said Roberts ran the wolf down with a snowmobile, Piper wrote in an earlier Nov. 24 filing that at least one prosecution witness may testify the wolf was not struck with a snowmobile. He also emphasized Roberts did not beat the wolf in the bar.

For now, the case is still moving through court — but the defense is clearly trying to end it before it ever reaches a jury.