consequence defense in Wyoming

2002The Court, in reviewing a prosecutor's remarks for plain error as a consequence of defense counsel's failure to object at trial, stated, "[w]e emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceeding; `the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043-44 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 , 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933)).

2002The Court, in reviewing a prosecutor's remarks for plain error as a consequence of defense counsel's failure to object at trial, stated, "[w]e emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceeding; `the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043-44 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 , 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933)).

2002The Court, in reviewing a prosecutor's remarks for plain error as a consequence of defense counsel's failure to object at trial, stated, "[w]e emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceeding; `the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043-44 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 , 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933)).

2002The Court, in reviewing a prosecutor's remarks for plain error as a consequence of defense counsel's failure to object at trial, stated, "[w]e emphasize that the trial judge has the responsibility to maintain decorum in keeping with the nature of the proceeding; `the judge is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 10 , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1043-44 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 , 53 S.Ct. 698 , 77 L.Ed. 1321 (1933)).

2020Sena, 2019 WY 111, ¶ 26 , 451 P.3d at 1149 .

2020Sena, 2019 WY 111, ¶ 26 , 451 P.3d at 1149 .

1982As a consequence it is the rule as well in criminal as in civil cases that the recovery and allowance of costs rest entirely on statutory provisions — that no right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization. * * ” State v. Faulkner, 75 Wyo. 104 , 292 P.2d 1045 (1956).

1982As a consequence it is the rule as well in criminal as in civil cases that the recovery and allowance of costs rest entirely on statutory provisions — that no right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization. * * ” State v. Faulkner, 75 Wyo. 104 , 292 P.2d 1045 (1956).

1962And in Worthen v. Abbott, 90 N.H. 164 , 5 A.2d 715, 716 , it was said: “ * * * It is good law, as well as sound logic, that when forces or conditions calculated to produce a certain result are shown to have been in operation or in existence at a given time and the expectable result occurs, it is a permissible inference that the result ensued as a consequence of the factors which rendered it antecedently probable. * * * ” See also 32 C.J.S.

1962And in Worthen v. Abbott, 90 N.H. 164 , 5 A.2d 715, 716 , it was said: “ * * * It is good law, as well as sound logic, that when forces or conditions calculated to produce a certain result are shown to have been in operation or in existence at a given time and the expectable result occurs, it is a permissible inference that the result ensued as a consequence of the factors which rendered it antecedently probable. * * * ” See also 32 C.J.S.