search for plain error in Wyoming

2012Plain error, as we have often stated, occurs when the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right." Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289, 1291 (Wyo.1999); see also Craver v. State, 942 P.2d 1110, 1115 (Wyo.1997).

2006Plain error, as we have often stated, occurs when the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right." Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289, 1291 (Wyo.1999); see also Craver v. State, 942 P.2d 1110, 1115 (Wyo.1997).

2012Plain error, as we have often stated, occurs when the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right." Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289, 1291 (Wyo.1999); see also Craver v. State, 942 P.2d 1110, 1115 (Wyo.1997).

2006Plain error, as we have often stated, occurs when the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right." Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289, 1291 (Wyo.1999); see also Craver v. State, 942 P.2d 1110, 1115 (Wyo.1997).

2024But because Mother “failed to address [her] due process rights to the juvenile court, our review of the issue is limited to a search for plain error.” 5 Id. (citing W.R.A.P. 9.05; Int. of ECH, 2018 WY 83 , ¶ 21, 423 P.3d 295, 302 (Wyo. 2018); KC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 47 , 351 P.3d at 248 ).

2023W.R.A.P. 9.05; ECH, ¶ 21, 423 P.3d at 302 ; KC, ¶ 47, 351 P.3d at 248 .

2019Therefore, we limit our review to a search for plain error."); Miller v. State , 2009 WY 125 , ¶ 19, 217 P.3d 793 , 800-01 (Wyo. 2009) ("Next, we turn to Mr. Miller's assertion that his detention was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.

2019Therefore, we limit our review to a search for plain error."); Miller v. State , 2009 WY 125 , ¶ 19, 217 P.3d 793 , 800-01 (Wyo. 2009) ("Next, we turn to Mr. Miller's assertion that his detention was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.

2016Brown v. State, 2014 WY 104, ¶ 19 , 332 P.3d 1168, 1174-75 (Wyo.2014) (citing Leiker v. State, 994 P.2d 917, 918 (Wyo.1999)).

2014Leiker v. State, 994 P.2d 917, 918 (Wyo.1999).

2015"However, when no objection is made concerning the consideration of a particular factor, review is necessarily confined to a search for plain error[.]' Id. at 7 , 199 P.3d at 524 (quoting Hirsch v. State, 2006 WY 66, ¶31 , 135 P.3d 586, 598 (Wyo.2006)).

2015"However, when no objection is made concerning the consideration of a particular factor, review is necessarily confined to a search for plain error[.]' Id. at 7 , 199 P.3d at 524 (quoting Hirsch v. State, 2006 WY 66, ¶31 , 135 P.3d 586, 598 (Wyo.2006)).

2013To dispose of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it. [¶ 42] Dennis did not object to the instructions actually given to the jury; "our review is therefore confined to a search for plain error." Magnus v. State, 2013 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 293 P.3d 459, 467 (Wyo.2013) (citing Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6 , 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo.2009)).

2013To dispose of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it. [¶ 42] Dennis did not object to the instructions actually given to the jury; "our review is therefore confined to a search for plain error." Magnus v. State, 2013 WY 13, ¶ 23 , 293 P.3d 459, 467 (Wyo.2013) (citing Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6 , 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo.2009)).

1996Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 656 (Wyo.1993).

1995Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 658 (Wyo.1993).

2024But because Mother “failed to address [her] due process rights to the juvenile court, our review of the issue is limited to a search for plain error.” 5 Id. (citing W.R.A.P. 9.05; Int. of ECH, 2018 WY 83 , ¶ 21, 423 P.3d 295, 302 (Wyo. 2018); KC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 47 , 351 P.3d at 248 ).

2024But because Mother “failed to address [her] due process rights to the juvenile court, our review of the issue is limited to a search for plain error.” 5 Id. (citing W.R.A.P. 9.05; Int. of ECH, 2018 WY 83 , ¶ 21, 423 P.3d 295, 302 (Wyo. 2018); KC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 47 , 351 P.3d at 248 ).

2018Hamilton v. State, 2017 WY 72 , ¶ 7, 396 P.3d 1009 , 1011 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Watts v. State , 2016 WY 40 , ¶ 6, 370 P.3d 104 , 106 (Wyo. 2016) ).

2018Hamilton v. State, 2017 WY 72 , ¶ 7, 396 P.3d 1009 , 1011 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Watts v. State , 2016 WY 40 , ¶ 6, 370 P.3d 104 , 106 (Wyo. 2016) ).

2017Anderson, ¶ 40, 327 P.3d at 99 . [¶40] The instruction is clearly reflected in the record; however, Mr. Webb cannot demonstrate the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious, and not merely arguable, way when it gave the jury this instruction.

2015"Plain error exists when '1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.'" Deeds, 2014 WY 124, ¶21 , 335 P.3d at 479 (quoting Anderson v. State, 2014 WY 74, ¶40 , 327 P.3d 89, 99 (Wyo.2014)). [T17] At sentencing, the prosecutor argued, "Your Honor, as [stated] in the PSI, probation is not appropriate for Mr. Butler. [The treatment] they have for sex offenders is not appropriate.

2024“Plain error occurs when ‘1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Int of BG, 2023 WY 40 ¶ 29 , 528 P.3d at 412 (quoting Int. of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23 , 391 P.3d at 1143 ); Int. of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 775 (Wyo. 1987) (there must be “a ‘clear and unequivocal rule of law[] which [the] particular facts…transgress[] in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable way’”) (quoting Jahnke v. State, 692 P.2d 911, 928 (Wyo

2024“Plain error occurs when ‘1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Int of BG, 2023 WY 40 ¶ 29 , 528 P.3d at 412 (quoting Int. of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23 , 391 P.3d at 1143 ); Int. of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 775 (Wyo. 1987) (there must be “a ‘clear and unequivocal rule of law[] which [the] particular facts…transgress[] in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable way’”) (quoting Jahnke v. State, 692 P.2d 911, 928 (Wyo

2024“Plain error occurs when ‘1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) there was a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Int of BG, 2023 WY 40 ¶ 29 , 528 P.3d at 412 (quoting Int. of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23 , 391 P.3d at 1143 ); Int. of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 775 (Wyo. 1987) (there must be “a ‘clear and unequivocal rule of law[] which [the] particular facts…transgress[] in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable way’”) (quoting Jahnke v. State, 692 P.2d 911, 928 (Wyo

2022KP, 2004 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 102 P.3d at 221; In re KAA, 2001 WY 24, ¶ 8 , 18 P.3d 1159, 1161 (Wyo. 2001).

2022KP, 2004 WY 165, ¶ 13 , 102 P.3d at 221; In re KAA, 2001 WY 24, ¶ 8 , 18 P.3d 1159, 1161 (Wyo. 2001).

2019Because Mr. Miller did not raise this issue with the district court, we review for plain error."); Mora v. State , 984 P.2d 477 , 479 (Wyo. 1999) ("Because Appellant's counsel offered no pretrial motion to suppress the evidence gained in the search, and lodged no objection to its admission at trial, we consider Appellant's claim under a plain error standard."); Ross v. State , 930 P.2d 965 , 968 (Wyo. 1996) ("Absent a pretrial motion to suppress or objection at trial, admission of evidence must amount to plain error in order to presage reversal."); Brown v. State , 953 P.2d 1170 , 1175 (Wyo. 1

2019Because Mr. Miller did not raise this issue with the district court, we review for plain error."); Mora v. State , 984 P.2d 477 , 479 (Wyo. 1999) ("Because Appellant's counsel offered no pretrial motion to suppress the evidence gained in the search, and lodged no objection to its admission at trial, we consider Appellant's claim under a plain error standard."); Ross v. State , 930 P.2d 965 , 968 (Wyo. 1996) ("Absent a pretrial motion to suppress or objection at trial, admission of evidence must amount to plain error in order to presage reversal."); Brown v. State , 953 P.2d 1170 , 1175 (Wyo. 1

2019Because Mr. Miller did not raise this issue with the district court, we review for plain error."); Mora v. State , 984 P.2d 477 , 479 (Wyo. 1999) ("Because Appellant's counsel offered no pretrial motion to suppress the evidence gained in the search, and lodged no objection to its admission at trial, we consider Appellant's claim under a plain error standard."); Ross v. State , 930 P.2d 965 , 968 (Wyo. 1996) ("Absent a pretrial motion to suppress or objection at trial, admission of evidence must amount to plain error in order to presage reversal."); Brown v. State , 953 P.2d 1170 , 1175 (Wyo. 1

2018Schmidt v. State, 2017 WY 101, ¶22 , 401 P.3d 868, 878 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Toth v. State, 2015 WY 86A, ¶29 , 353 P.3d 696, 705-06 (Wyo. 2015)). [1121] For any alleged errors in the admission of testimony to which Mr. Garriott did not object, we limit our review tq a search for plain error.

2018Schmidt v. State, 2017 WY 101, ¶22 , 401 P.3d 868, 878 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Toth v. State, 2015 WY 86A, ¶29 , 353 P.3d 696, 705-06 (Wyo. 2015)). [1121] For any alleged errors in the admission of testimony to which Mr. Garriott did not object, we limit our review tq a search for plain error.

2018Hathaway v. State, 2017 WY 92, ¶ 29 , 399 P.3d 625, 634 (Wyo. 2017).

2018Hathaway v. State, 2017 WY 92, ¶ 29 , 399 P.3d 625, 634 (Wyo. 2017).

2018Schmidt v. State, 2017 WY 101, ¶22 , 401 P.3d 868, 878 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Toth v. State, 2015 WY 86A, ¶29 , 353 P.3d 696, 705-06 (Wyo. 2015)). [1121] For any alleged errors in the admission of testimony to which Mr. Garriott did not object, we limit our review tq a search for plain error.

2017See Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 22 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1202 (Wyo. 2010) (using the plain error standard to review vouching issue because defendant did not object on that basis).

2017See Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 22 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1202 (Wyo. 2010) (using the plain error standard to review vouching issue because defendant did not object on that basis).

2017“We have often repeated that we will not consider a new issue on appeal that has not first been brought to the attention of the district court.” In re AGS, 2014 WY 143, ¶ 33 , 337 P.3d 470, 480 (Wyo. 2014) (citations omitted).

2017“We have often repeated that we will not consider a new issue on appeal that has not first been brought to the attention of the district court.” In re AGS, 2014 WY 143, ¶ 33 , 337 P.3d 470, 480 (Wyo. 2014) (citations omitted).

2016We therefore forego our usual standard of review and confine our review to a search for plain error,. [180] To establish plain error, an appellant "must establish by reference to the record that a clear and obvious violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law adversely affected a substantial right to such a degree that [the appellant! was materially prejudiced." Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 14 , 366 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo. 2016); see also Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119 , 1 16, 358 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 2015). 2.

2016We therefore forego our usual standard of review and confine our review to a search for plain error,. [180] To establish plain error, an appellant "must establish by reference to the record that a clear and obvious violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law adversely affected a substantial right to such a degree that [the appellant! was materially prejudiced." Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 14 , 366 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo. 2016); see also Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119 , 1 16, 358 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 2015). 2.