John later claimed protection under the new law, which includes the “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” provisions the former of which, Wilking ultimately ruled, made John immune from prosecution. Before the dismissal hearing even began, however, the district court judge implored attorneys to appeal her decisions, noting that application of the law had not yet been tested by Wyoming’s courts, leaving her with no local precedent to lean upon. Wilking said at the same February 2019 hearing that the new law did not make clear how it was intended to be implemented.

The law, which became effective about a month before the shooting, promised increased legal protections for people acting in self-defense. Those provisions specify that people protecting themselves generally do not have an obligation to retreat from attackers and that people in their homes are generally considered to be acting in self-defense when they shoot unlawful intruders.

Although the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office had argued on appeal that the law provided only direction for prosecutors and was not enforceable by the courts, the Supreme Court ruled against the state on that issue in it’s Monday opinion. Judges under the law are to serve a gatekeeping role, dismissing cases against people who exercise reasonable force in self-defense.