finding of plain error in Wyoming

2022“Failure to establish each element ... precludes a finding of plain error.” Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 23 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018)). [¶36] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied because the alleged improper leading questions are clearly reflected in the record.

2022“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018)). “[O]ur review is focused on whether the error affected [Mr. Lott’s] substantial right to a fair trial.” Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 40, 438 P.3d 216, 231 (Wyo. 2019) (citing McGinn v. State, 2015 WY 140, ¶ 13 , 361 P.3d 295, 299 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶11] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied in this case “because the allegedly improper comments clearly appear in the rec

2023Failure to establish each element . . . precludes a finding of plain error.” Beeson, ¶ 6, 512 P.3d at 989 (quoting Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 23 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 410 , 211 L.Ed.2d 220 (2021)).

2023Failure to establish each element . . . precludes a finding of plain error.” Beeson, ¶ 6, 512 P.3d at 989 (quoting Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 23 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 142 S.Ct. 410 , 211 L.Ed.2d 220 (2021)).

1995Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 656 (Wyo.1993) (citing Geiger v. State, 859 P.2d 665, 668 (Wyo.1993)).

1994Failure to establish each element of this three-part test precludes a finding of plain error.” Suliber v. State, 866 P.2d 85, 90 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Geiger v. State, 859 P.2d 665, 668 (Wyo.1993)).

2026“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646, 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021)). [¶15] The first element is satisfied here because the victim’s comments clearly appear in the record.

2026“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646, 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021)). [¶15] The first element is satisfied here because the victim’s comments clearly appear in the record.

2026“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646, 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021)). [¶15] The first element is satisfied here because the victim’s comments clearly appear in the record.

2026“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646, 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021)). [¶15] The first element is satisfied here because the victim’s comments clearly appear in the record.

2025“Failure to establish any of the three elements precludes a finding of plain error.” Sanchez, ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 404 (citing Soares, ¶ 18, 545 P.3d at 877).

2024“Failure to establish any of the three elements precludes a finding of plain error.” Id. (citing Soares, ¶ 18, 545 P.3d at 877 ). [¶38] The first step of the plain error test is met here because the alleged errors appear in the record.

2021“Failure to establish each element . . . precludes a finding of plain error.” Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Jackson v. State, 891 P.2d 70, 74 (Wyo. 1995)).

2021“Failure to establish each element . . . precludes a finding of plain error.” Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Jackson v. State, 891 P.2d 70, 74 (Wyo. 1995)).

2009Landsiedel v. Buffalo Properties, LLC, 2005 WY 61, ¶ 13 , 112 P.3d 610, 614 (Wyo.2005), citing Triton Coal Co., Inc. v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 800 P.2d 505, 510 (Wyo. 1990).

2005Triton Coal Co., Inc. v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 800 P.2d 505, 510 (Wyo.1990) (citations omitted). [¶ 14] Mr. Landsiedel argues that the spirit of the rule was satisfied here because he fully informed the district court of the legal issues implicated in the instructions through pretrial submissions, briefing and argument on pretrial motions and a lengthy discussion during the instruction conference.

2025“Failure to establish any of the three elements precludes a finding of plain error.” Sanchez, ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 404 (citing Soares, ¶ 18, 545 P.3d at 877).

2025“Failure to establish any of the three elements precludes a finding of plain error.” Id. at ¶ 40 (quoting Sanchez, ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 404 ).

2025Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.’” Id., ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 397 (quoting Delarosa v. State, 2023 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 525 P.3d 1024 , 1026 (Wyo. 2023)) (internal quotations omitted).

2025Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.’” Id., ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 397 (quoting Delarosa v. State, 2023 WY 22, ¶ 6 , 525 P.3d 1024 , 1026 (Wyo. 2023)) (internal quotations omitted).

1995Taul v. State, 862 P.2d 649, 656 (Wyo.1993) (citing Geiger v. State, 859 P.2d 665, 668 (Wyo.1993)).

1995Taul, 862 P.2d at 656 (quoting Geiger v. State, 859 P.2d 665, 668 (Wyo.1993) (citations omitted)).

2025We need not address the second prong, or the question of whether self-defense is available as a defense to a charge of property destruction, because Mr. Montoya has not shown that he was materially prejudiced by the allegedly erroneous instructions. 2 See Green v. State, 2025 WY 20, ¶ 10 , 563 P.3d 1090 , 1093 (Wyo. 2025) (“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.”) (quoting Lynch v. State, 2024 WY 79, ¶ 12 , 552 P.3d 392 , 397 (Wyo. 2024)). [¶15] Mr. Montoya asserts that because he admitted reversing into Mr. Kremer’s vehicle, the only issue for the jury to decide

2025We need not address the second prong, or the question of whether self-defense is available as a defense to a charge of property destruction, because Mr. Montoya has not shown that he was materially prejudiced by the allegedly erroneous instructions. 2 See Green v. State, 2025 WY 20, ¶ 10 , 563 P.3d 1090 , 1093 (Wyo. 2025) (“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.”) (quoting Lynch v. State, 2024 WY 79, ¶ 12 , 552 P.3d 392 , 397 (Wyo. 2024)). [¶15] Mr. Montoya asserts that because he admitted reversing into Mr. Kremer’s vehicle, the only issue for the jury to decide

2025When examining whether the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law, this Court considers only “the information in the record at the time the plea was accepted.” Id. (citing Mellott v. State, 2019 WY 23 , ¶ 28, 435 P.3d 376, 387 (Wyo. 2019) (citations omitted)).

2024“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646 , 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279 , 288 (Wyo. 2021)). 5 [¶19] “The first step of the plain error test is met because the alleged error clearly appears in the record.” Gutierrez, 2020 WY 150, ¶ 8 , 477 P.3d at 531 (citing Grater, 2020 WY 102, ¶ 7 , 468 P.3d at 1118).

2024“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Lott v. State, 2022 WY 143, ¶ 10 , 519 P.3d 646 , 649 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279 , 288 (Wyo. 2021)). 5 [¶19] “The first step of the plain error test is met because the alleged error clearly appears in the record.” Gutierrez, 2020 WY 150, ¶ 8 , 477 P.3d at 531 (citing Grater, 2020 WY 102, ¶ 7 , 468 P.3d at 1118).

2022“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018)). “[O]ur review is focused on whether the error affected [Mr. Lott’s] substantial right to a fair trial.” Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 40, 438 P.3d 216, 231 (Wyo. 2019) (citing McGinn v. State, 2015 WY 140, ¶ 13 , 361 P.3d 295, 299 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶11] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied in this case “because the allegedly improper comments clearly appear in the rec

2022“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018)). “[O]ur review is focused on whether the error affected [Mr. Lott’s] substantial right to a fair trial.” Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 40, 438 P.3d 216, 231 (Wyo. 2019) (citing McGinn v. State, 2015 WY 140, ¶ 13 , 361 P.3d 295, 299 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶11] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied in this case “because the allegedly improper comments clearly appear in the rec

2022“Failure to establish each element precludes a finding of plain error.” Klingbeil v. State, 2021 WY 89, ¶ 40 , 492 P.3d 279, 288 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. State, 2018 WY 136 , ¶ 13, 430 P.3d 774, 777 (Wyo. 2018)). “[O]ur review is focused on whether the error affected [Mr. Lott’s] substantial right to a fair trial.” Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 40, 438 P.3d 216, 231 (Wyo. 2019) (citing McGinn v. State, 2015 WY 140, ¶ 13 , 361 P.3d 295, 299 (Wyo. 2015)). [¶11] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied in this case “because the allegedly improper comments clearly appear in the rec

2021“Where appropriate, we address the prejudice element of the plain error test first, without addressing whether there has been a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.” Id.; Nielsen v. State, 2018 WY 132 , ¶ 23, 430 P.3d 740, 748 (Wyo. 2018); Dumas v. State, 2018 WY 120 , ¶ 28, 428 P.3d 449, 456 (Wyo. 2018); Miller v. State, 2015 WY 68, ¶ 8 , 350 P.3d 264, 266 (Wyo. 2015). [¶24] Both prosecutorial misconduct and plain error require an appellant to establish material prejudice to warrant reversal.

2021“Where appropriate, we address the prejudice element of the plain error test first, without addressing whether there has been a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.” Id.; Nielsen v. State, 2018 WY 132 , ¶ 23, 430 P.3d 740, 748 (Wyo. 2018); Dumas v. State, 2018 WY 120 , ¶ 28, 428 P.3d 449, 456 (Wyo. 2018); Miller v. State, 2015 WY 68, ¶ 8 , 350 P.3d 264, 266 (Wyo. 2015). [¶24] Both prosecutorial misconduct and plain error require an appellant to establish material prejudice to warrant reversal.

2021“Where appropriate, we address the prejudice element of the plain error test first, without addressing whether there has been a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.” Id.; Nielsen v. State, 2018 WY 132 , ¶ 23, 430 P.3d 740, 748 (Wyo. 2018); Dumas v. State, 2018 WY 120 , ¶ 28, 428 P.3d 449, 456 (Wyo. 2018); Miller v. State, 2015 WY 68, ¶ 8 , 350 P.3d 264, 266 (Wyo. 2015). [¶24] Both prosecutorial misconduct and plain error require an appellant to establish material prejudice to warrant reversal.

2021“Where appropriate, we address the prejudice element of the plain error test first, without addressing whether there has been a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.” Id.; Nielsen v. State, 2018 WY 132 , ¶ 23, 430 P.3d 740, 748 (Wyo. 2018); Dumas v. State, 2018 WY 120 , ¶ 28, 428 P.3d 449, 456 (Wyo. 2018); Miller v. State, 2015 WY 68, ¶ 8 , 350 P.3d 264, 266 (Wyo. 2015). [¶24] Both prosecutorial misconduct and plain error require an appellant to establish material prejudice to warrant reversal.

2020“Under the plain error standard of review, we reverse a trial court’s decision only if it is so plainly erroneous that the judge should have noticed and corrected the mistake even though the parties failed to raise the issue.” Hernandez v. State, 2010 WY 33, ¶ 21 , 227 P.3d 315, 322 (Wyo. 2010).

2020“Under the plain error standard of review, we reverse a trial court’s decision only if it is so plainly erroneous that the judge should have noticed and corrected the mistake even though the parties failed to raise the issue.” Hernandez v. State, 2010 WY 33, ¶ 21 , 227 P.3d 315, 322 (Wyo. 2010).

2016Since a district court cannot be faulted for failing to act on its own motion where the law is unsettled, a matter of first impression will generally preclude a finding of plain error, See United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1193 (10th Cir.2011), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1046 , 18 L.Ed.2d 740 (2012); United States v. Ruiz-Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).

2016Since a district court cannot be faulted for failing to act on its own motion where the law is unsettled, a matter of first impression will generally preclude a finding of plain error, See United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1193 (10th Cir.2011), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1046 , 18 L.Ed.2d 740 (2012); United States v. Ruiz-Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir.2003).

2009Landsiedel v. Buffalo Properties, LLC, 2005 WY 61, ¶ 13 , 112 P.3d 610, 614 (Wyo.2005), citing Triton Coal Co., Inc. v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 800 P.2d 505, 510 (Wyo. 1990).

2009Landsiedel v. Buffalo Properties, LLC, 2005 WY 61, ¶ 13 , 112 P.3d 610, 614 (Wyo.2005), citing Triton Coal Co., Inc. v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 800 P.2d 505, 510 (Wyo. 1990).