party claiming 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.

1999Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.” Beintema v. State, 936 P.2d 1221, 1224 (Wyo.1997) (quoting Bradley, 635 P.2d at 1164 ).

1997Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.’ ” Vigil v. State, 926 P.2d 351, 357 (Wyo.1996) (quoting Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724, 739 (Wyo.1986) (quoting Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Wyo.1981) (citation omitted))).

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)).

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.

2017We find plain error only when: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 81 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016), quoting Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2006) (some citations omitted). [¶26] The record contains the relevant instructions.

2017We find plain error only when: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 81 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016), quoting Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 10 , 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2006) (some citations omitted). [¶26] The record contains the relevant instructions.

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).

1994Auclair, 660 P.2d at 1159 (citation omitted).

1993Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.’ ” Johnston v. State, 747 P.2d 1132, 1134 (Wyo.1987) (quoting Auclair v. State, 660 P.2d 1156, 1159 (Wyo.1983) cert. denied 464 U.S. 909 , 104 S.Ct. 265 , 78 L.Ed.2d 249 and Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1164 (Wyo.1981)). .See [W.R.Cr.P. 52(b)].

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)).

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

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

2007Finally, that party must prove a substantial right has been denied him and, as a result, he has been materially prejudiced." Id. (quoting Wilks v. State, 2002 WY 100, ¶ 7 , 49 P.3d 975, 981 (Wyo.2002)). [19] To resolve this issue, it is necessary to review the record in some detail and place the events in context.

2007Finally, that party must prove a substantial right has been denied him and, as a result, he has been materially prejudiced." Id. (quoting Wilks v. State, 2002 WY 100, ¶ 7 , 49 P.3d 975, 981 (Wyo.2002)). [19] To resolve this issue, it is necessary to review the record in some detail and place the events in context.

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

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)).

2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th

2019As often stated, plain error exists when: "(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation *818 of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Garriott v. State , 2018 WY 4 , ¶ 21, 408 P.3d 771 , 780-81 (quoting Hathaway v. State , 2017 WY 92 , ¶ 29, 399 P.3d 625 , 634 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Griggs v. State , 2016 WY 16 , ¶ 81, 367 P.3d 1108 , 1132-33 (Wyo. 2016) ) ). [¶23] The instruction challenged by Mr. Farrow appears in th

2000"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." Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999) (quoting Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994)); see also Mora v. State, 984 P.2d 477, 480 (Wyo.1999).

2000"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." Yetter v. State, 987 P.2d 666, 668 (Wyo.1999) (quoting Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994)); see also Mora v. State, 984 P.2d 477, 480 (Wyo.1999).

2000Porth v. State, 868 P.2d 236, 241 (Wyo.1994).

1995Id. (citing Porth v. State, 868 P.2d 236, 241 (Wyo.1994)).

1993Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced.’ ” Ramos v. State, 806 P.2d 822, 827 (Wyo.1991) (quoting Bradley [v. State], 635 P.2d [1161,] 1164 [Wyo.1981]).

1991Finally, that party must prove that a substantial right has been denied him and as a result he has been materially prejudiced." Ramos v. State, 806 P.2d 822, 827 (Wyo. 1991) (quoting Bradley, 635 P.2d at 1164 ).

2016Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 798, 797-793 (Wyo.2006).

2010Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15 , 127 P.3d 793, 797-98 (Wyo.2006).

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.” Sandy v. State, 870 P.2d 352, 358 (Wyo.1994); see also Hodges v. State, 904 P.2d 334, 341 (Wyo.1995).

1998We recently restated the test for plain error review in Urrutia v. State, 924 *967 P.2d 965, 969 (Wyo.1996) (quoting Hodges v. State, 904 P.2d 334, 341 (Wyo.1995)): “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 error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him.” Ortega did not argue the existence of plain error nor did he attempt to analyze the alleged error in the context of plain error review.

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, Id. [110] Mr. Johnson also contends the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary conviction, arguing the evidence presented was insufficient to support it.

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.

2012In order to show plain error, the party alleging error must demonstrate: "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 error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him." Walker, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 6 , 267 P.3d at 1110 (citations omitted). [¶ 7] Here, while the record is clear that the report was admitted into evidence, we need not determine whether a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated because father has failed to prove that, if there was error, it was prejudic

2012In order to show plain error, the party alleging error must demonstrate: "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 error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced him." Walker, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 6 , 267 P.3d at 1110 (citations omitted). [¶ 7] Here, while the record is clear that the report was admitted into evidence, we need not determine whether a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated because father has failed to prove that, if there was error, it was prejudic

2025Plain error exists when “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. at ¶ 22, 437 P.3d at 817 -18 (quoting Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21 , 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (Wyo. 2018)). 3 [¶35] We find plain error does not exist because a clear and unequivocal rule of law was not violated.

2025Plain error exists when “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Id. at ¶ 22, 437 P.3d at 817 -18 (quoting Garriott v. State, 2018 WY 4, ¶ 21 , 408 P.3d 771, 780-81 (Wyo. 2018)). 3 [¶35] We find plain error does not exist because a clear and unequivocal rule of law was not violated.

2016Ortiz v. State, 2014 WY 60, ¶ 104 , 326 P.3d 883, 903 (Wyo. 2014). [126] We apply the following requirements for plain error:; "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." Id.

2016Ortiz v. State, 2014 WY 60, ¶ 104 , 326 P.3d 883, 903 (Wyo. 2014). [126] We apply the following requirements for plain error:; "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." Id.