incident alleged error in Wyoming

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2012We have repeatedly held that "[pllain 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 which materially prejudiced him." Id. at ¶ 33, [100 P.3d] at 408 (quoting Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994)).

2000The plain error doctrine was applied with respect to a failure to object to a jury instruction in Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994): 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 8) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.

2004“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 *1025 of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.” Mazurek v. State, 10 P.3d 531, 535 (Wyo.2000) (citing Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999)). 2.

2004Finally, we clarified in Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 23 , 63 P.3d 875, ¶ 23 (Wyo.2003), that: “ ‘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 which materially prejudiced him.’” Mazurek, 10 P.3d at 535 (quoting Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999))....

2004“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 *1025 of law; and 3) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.” Mazurek v. State, 10 P.3d 531, 535 (Wyo.2000) (citing Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999)). 2.

2004Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717, 723-24 (Wyo.1999). “ ‘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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Mazurek, 10 P.3d at 535 (quoting Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999)).

2019“Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about 3 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.” Id. ¶ 19, 228 P.3d at 882 (citing Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 215 P.3d 287, 293 (Wyo. 2009)).

2014"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." Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 22 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1202 (Wyo.2010) (quoting Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45, ¶ 19 , 228 P.3d 874 , 882 *100 (Wyo.2010)).

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2015Plain 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 8) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 22 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1202 (Wyo.2010).

2015Plain 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 8) the party claiming the error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 22 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1202 (Wyo.2010).

2025“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 9 error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Int of BG, 2023 WY 40, ¶ 29 , 528 P.3d 402 , 412 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Int. of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23 , 391 P.3d 1136, 1143 (Wyo. 2017)); see also 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’”).

2025“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 9 error was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.’” Int of BG, 2023 WY 40, ¶ 29 , 528 P.3d 402 , 412 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Int. of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23 , 391 P.3d 1136, 1143 (Wyo. 2017)); see also 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’”).

2026“To satisfy the plain error standard, 3 Mr. [Bustos] must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 (citation omitted).

2023To establish plain error, Mr. Meece “must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. (quoting Ridinger v. State, 2021 WY 4, ¶ 33 , 478 P.3d 1160, 1168 (Wyo. 2021)).

2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " '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 which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis

2015Duke v. State, 2009 WY 74, ¶ 22 , 209 P.3d 563, 571 (Wyo.2009). " '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 which materially prejudiced him."" Nguyen v. State, 2013 WY 50, ¶ 10 , 299 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo.2013) (quoting Kidwell v. State, 2012 WY 91, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 540, 543 (Wyo.2012)); see also W.R.Cr.P. 11(h) ("Any variance from the procedures required by this rule which does not affect substantial rights shall be dis

2023To establish plain error, Mr. King “must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id., ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 (citing Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85, ¶ 55 , 378 P.3d 280, 293 (Wyo. 2016)).

2023To establish plain error, Mr. King “must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id., ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 (citing Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85, ¶ 55 , 378 P.3d 280, 293 (Wyo. 2016)).

2018The plain error standard of review requires Mr. Johns to show: “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.” Schmuck v. State, 2017, WY 140, ¶ 32, 406 P.3d 286, 297 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Collins v. State, 2015 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 354 P.3d 55, 57 (Wyo. 2015) ). 1 In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that, “[a] trial court is given wide latitude in instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions correctly

2018The plain error standard of review requires Mr. Johns to show: “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.” Schmuck v. State, 2017, WY 140, ¶ 32, 406 P.3d 286, 297 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Collins v. State, 2015 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 354 P.3d 55, 57 (Wyo. 2015) ). 1 In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that, “[a] trial court is given wide latitude in instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions correctly

2018"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.' Deeds v. State , 2014 WY 124 , ¶ 21, 335 P.3d 473 , 479 (Wyo. 2014) (citations omitted). 'The appellant bears the burden of proving plain error[.]' Id. " ST, ¶ 23, 391 P.3d at 1143 (quoting In re AGS , 2014 WY 143 , ¶ 34, 337 P.3d 470 , 480 (Wyo. 2014) ). [¶27] The first part of the plain error test is satisfied in this case.

2018"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.' Deeds v. State , 2014 WY 124 , ¶ 21, 335 P.3d 473 , 479 (Wyo. 2014) (citations omitted). 'The appellant bears the burden of proving plain error[.]' Id. " ST, ¶ 23, 391 P.3d at 1143 (quoting In re AGS , 2014 WY 143 , ¶ 34, 337 P.3d 470 , 480 (Wyo. 2014) ). [¶27] The first part of the plain error test is satisfied in this case.

2005“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 which materially prejudiced him.” Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 6 , 100 P.3d 386, ¶ 6 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 23 , 63 P.3d 875, ¶ 23 (Wyo.2003)).

2005“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 which materially prejudiced him.” Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 6 , 100 P.3d 386, ¶ 6 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 23 , 63 P.3d 875, ¶ 23 (Wyo.2003)).

2016"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 which materially prejudiced him." Young v. State, 2016 WY 70 , 1 18, 375 P.3d 792, 796 (Wy0.2016) (citations omitted).

2016"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 which materially prejudiced him." Young v. State, 2016 WY 70 , 1 18, 375 P.3d 792, 796 (Wy0.2016) (citations omitted).

2022“To satisfy the plain error standard, Mr. [Esquibel] must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Ridinger v. State, 2021 WY 4, ¶ 33 , 478 P.3d 1160 , 1168 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85, ¶ 55 , 378 P.3d 280, 293 (Wyo. 2016), and Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119, ¶ 16 , 358 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 2015)) (other citation omitted). [¶18] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied because the allegedly improper testimony cle

2022“To satisfy the plain error standard, Mr. [Esquibel] must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Ridinger v. State, 2021 WY 4, ¶ 33 , 478 P.3d 1160 , 1168 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Mraz v. State, 2016 WY 85, ¶ 55 , 378 P.3d 280, 293 (Wyo. 2016), and Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119, ¶ 16 , 358 P.3d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 2015)) (other citation omitted). [¶18] The first prong of plain error review is satisfied because the allegedly improper testimony cle

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2017Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 35 , 366 P.3d 512, 520 (Wyo. 2016). 3 ‘“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 which materially prejudiced him.’ ” Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9 , 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Talley v. State, 2007 WY 37, ¶ 9 , 153 P.3d 256, 260 (Wyo. 2007)). [¶12] As reflected in the Facts section above, the errors alleged by Appellant are clearly set forth in the record.

2020To satisfy the plain error standard, Ms. Wyant must show “1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) the district court transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) [s]he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Sindelar, ¶ 16, 416 P.3d at 768 (citing Johns v. State, 2018 WY 16, ¶ 12 , 409 P.3d 1260, 1264 (Wyo. 2018)).

2020To satisfy the plain error standard, Ms. Wyant must show “1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; 2) the district court transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) [s]he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Sindelar, ¶ 16, 416 P.3d at 768 (citing Johns v. State, 2018 WY 16, ¶ 12 , 409 P.3d 1260, 1264 (Wyo. 2018)).

2026Ingersoll, ¶ 9, 511 P.3d at 484 . [¶20] We find this case is one where it is appropriate to “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.” Klingbeil, ¶ 43, 492 P.3d at 288 (quoting Leners, ¶ 23, 486 P.3d at 1018 ).

2025“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)). [¶24] The first element of the plain error is satisfied in this case.

2023“To satisfy the plain error standard, [Mr. Berry] must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. (quoting Ingersoll v. State, 2022 WY 74, ¶ 9 , 511 P.3d 480, 484 (Wyo. 2022)).

2023“To satisfy the plain error standard, [Mr. Berry] must show (1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error; (2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. (quoting Ingersoll v. State, 2022 WY 74, ¶ 9 , 511 P.3d 480, 484 (Wyo. 2022)).

2026Under plain error review, an appellant must establish: “1) the record clearly shows the incident alleged as error; 2) the district court transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) the [appellant] was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Bazzle v. State, 2019 WY 18 , ¶ 28, 434 P.3d 1090, 1097 (Wyo. 2019) (citations omitted). [¶18] For the purposes of determining whether plain error has been shown, “[m]aterial prejudice means a reasonable probability exists that the result would have been more favorable in the absence of the alleged error.” Bruce v. State, 2

2020Id. [¶8] Under plain error, the appellant must first establish that “the record clearly shows the incident alleged as error[.]” Bazzle v. State, 2019 WY 18 , ¶ 28, 434 P.3d 1090, 1097 (Wyo. 2019).

2026Ingersoll, ¶ 9, 511 P.3d at 484 . [¶20] We find this case is one where it is appropriate to “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.” Klingbeil, ¶ 43, 492 P.3d at 288 (quoting Leners, ¶ 23, 486 P.3d at 1018 ).

2023Mr. Berry must demonstrate “it is reasonably probable he would have received a more favorable verdict if the error had not been made.” Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 24 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Weston v. State, 2019 WY 113 , ¶¶ 34–41, 451 P.3d 758 , 768–69 (Wyo. 2019)).

2025“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)). [¶24] The first element of the plain error is satisfied in this case.

2025“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)). [¶24] The first element of the plain error is satisfied in this case.

2019“Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about 3 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.” Id. ¶ 19, 228 P.3d at 882 (citing Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 215 P.3d 287, 293 (Wyo. 2009)).

2019“Plain error exists when: 1) the record is clear about 3 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.” Id. ¶ 19, 228 P.3d at 882 (citing Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶ 18 , 215 P.3d 287, 293 (Wyo. 2009)).