plain error in Wyoming

2025“Timely objection is the proper way to correct improper closing arguments, because it allows the trial court to weigh the impact of the comments and assess curative measures.” Id., (quoting Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). [¶52] Mr. Testerman has met the first prong of the plain error test because both incidents alleged as error are clearly reflected in the trial transcript.

2013Id., quoting Burton v. State, 2002 WY 71, 13 , 46 P.3d 309, 313-14 (Wyo.2002). [112] The prosecutors' statements are found in the trial transcripts, satisfying the first part of the plain error analysis.

2009That is why, in a plain error analysis, the Appellant must demonstrate "the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law which the particular facts transgress in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way." Hampton v. State, 558 P.2d 504, 507 (Wyo.1977). [120] The error that Mr. Causey brings to our attention was not an obvious transgression of any clear and unequivocal rule of law.

2000We adopted the criteria for plain error in Hampton v. State, 558 P.2d 504, 507-08 (Wyo.1977), where we said: While this Court has recognized that the plain error concept must be applied to each case on its own particular facts, and any attempt to define the term "plain error or defects affecting substantial rights" is unlikely to be helpful ( Hays v. State, Wyo., 522 P.2d 1004 (1974)), still there are some accepted criteria which we invoke when a claim of plain error is presented.

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.

1998Also, see generally Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1163-64 (Wyo.1981) (a failure to object constitutes a waiver to whatever error occurred, unless the error rises to the level of plain error).

1996In Schmunk, 714 P.2d at 739 , in addressing a claim of an inappropriate ruling on hearsay, we reaffirmed by quoting what we said in Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1163-64 (Wyo.1981), about plain error analysis: A failure to object constitutes a waiver of whatever error occurred, unless the error rises to the level of plain error.

2008Arevalo v. State, 939 P.2d 228, 232 (Wyo.1997).

2002"A plain error analysis requires the appellant to demonstrate the 'violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, clearly reflected in the record," resulting in the abridgment of a substantial right of the party to his material prejudice." Marquez v. State, 12 P.3d 711, 717 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Arevalo v. State, 939 P.2d 228, 232 (Wyo.1997)). [T25] The prosecutor stated the following during her closing argument: Now, the only defense that the defendant has raised throughout the trial is that she did not know that Eric Huff did not give permission for Warren Harlow to sign his card.

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))....

2026“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.” Klingbeil, ¶ 43, 430 P.3d at 288 (quoting Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 23 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021) (citations omitted)). 3 DISCUSSION The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State’s Motion in Limine. [¶14] Mr. Meyer first challenges the district court’s pretrial ruling granting the State’s motion in limine which sought to exclude potential impeachment evidence that L.J. attended

2026“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.” Klingbeil, ¶ 43, 430 P.3d at 288 (quoting Leners v. State, 2021 WY 67, ¶ 23 , 486 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Wyo. 2021) (citations omitted)). 3 DISCUSSION The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State’s Motion in Limine. [¶14] Mr. Meyer first challenges the district court’s pretrial ruling granting the State’s motion in limine which sought to exclude potential impeachment evidence that L.J. attended

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.

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.

1995Plain error can be assigned only when "(1) the record clearly shows the incidents alleged as plain error; (2) [Guerra] demonstrates the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and, (3) it is shown that a substantial right of [Guerra] was materially prejudiced." Lobatos v. State, 875 P.2d 716, 721 (Wyo.1994).

1995Plain error can be assigned only when “(1) the record clearly shows the incidents alleged as plain error; (2) [Guerra] demonstrates the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and, (3) it is shown that a substantial right of [Guerra] was materially prejudiced.” Lobatos v. State, 875 P.2d 716, 721 (Wyo.1994).

2011Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1064 (Wyo.2000).

2008As to the second element of plain error, the appellant relies upon Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1066 (Wyo.2000), for the proposition that the burden of proof rests with the State and never shifts to a defendant.

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.

2008Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 23 , 63 P.3d 875, 884 (Wyo.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶15] The first prong of the plain error test has been met in that the questioned remarks clearly appear in the trial transeript.

2008Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 23 , 63 P.3d 875, 884 (Wyo.2003) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶15] The first prong of the plain error test has been met in that the questioned remarks clearly appear in the trial transeript.

2026“Merely asserting prejudice without a proper showing is not enough to meet the plain error 3 standard.” Soares v. State, 2024 WY 39, ¶ 37 , 545 P.3d 871, 880 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Doherty v. State, 2006 WY 39, ¶ 23 , 131 P.3d 963, 971 (Wyo. 2006)).

2026“Merely asserting prejudice without a proper showing is not enough to meet the plain error 3 standard.” Soares v. State, 2024 WY 39, ¶ 37 , 545 P.3d 871, 880 (Wyo. 2024) (quoting Doherty v. State, 2006 WY 39, ¶ 23 , 131 P.3d 963, 971 (Wyo. 2006)).

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).

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).

2023Ridinger v. State, 2021 WY 4, ¶ 32 , 478 P.3d 1160, 1168 (Wyo. 2021) (“[B]ecause Mr. Ridinger did not object to the prosecutor’s comments at trial, the plain error standard applies.” (citing Dixon, ¶ 39, 438 P.3d at 231)) (other citation omitted).

2026See generally Gresham, 708 P.2d at 55–57 (reviewing whether the judge abused his discretion when making comments and asking questions during voir dire under a plain error analysis); Summers, 725 P.2d at 1039 (reviewing whether the judge abused his discretion when asking questions and making comments during voir dire). 8 since they found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

1994These criteria apply even when constitutional error is alleged; and unless each one of them is satisfied, any claim for review under the plain-error doctrine must fail.’ ” Russell v. State, 851 P.2d 1274, 1278 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Gresham v. State, 708 P.2d 49, 55 (Wyo.1985)).

2022Under the plain-error standard, “failure to instruct on an essential element is not reversible if the element was not contested or ‘where evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming’ because, under those circumstances, the defendant suffers no prejudice from the violation.” Id. ¶ 21, 193 P.3d at 272 (quoting Miller v. State, 904 P.2d 344, 349 (Wyo. 1995)). 15 [T]he test of whether a jury has been properly instructed on the necessary elements of a crime is whether the instructions leave no doubt as to the circumstances under which the crime can be found to have been committed.

2013"Even when constitutional error is alleged, each criterion must be satisfied or a claim *916 for review under the plain-error doctrine will fail." Miller v. State, 904 P.2d 344, 348 (Wyo.1995).

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

2024But “[u]nder 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) (quoting Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶19 , 215 P.3d 287, 293 (Wyo. 2009)).

2024But “[u]nder 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) (quoting Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶19 , 215 P.3d 287, 293 (Wyo. 2009)).

2005Therefore, we review his claim for plain error. [¶ 17] Under the plain error rule, Mr. Landsiedel is required to show: “(1) the record reflects clear and unequivocally the fact complained of; (2) the facts prove a transgression of a clear rule of law; (3) the error affects a substantial right of [Mr. Landsiedel]; and (4) [Mr. Landsiedel] has been materially prejudiced by that violation.” Goggins v. Harwood, 704 P.2d 1282, 1291 (Wyo.1985) (citation omitted).

1990If these criteria are met, the error or defect must adversely affect some substantial right of the accused in order to avoid the application of the harmless error concept procedurally expressed in Rule 49(a), W.R.Cr.P.” (Citations omitted.) In Goggins, 704 P.2d at 1291 , citing West-mark v. State, 693 P.2d 220 (Wyo.1984), we applied that plain error standard, saying: “In order to invoke the plain-error rule, it is necessary to show “ ‘ * * * (1) that the record reflects clear and unequivocally the fact complained of; (2) that the facts prove a transgression of a clear rule of law; (3) that the

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)).

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’”).

2010Mazurek, 10 P.3d at 536 . [T22] We need spend little time on the first prong of the plain error test as the record clearly reflects the testimony alleged as error.

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.

2025“Timely objection is the proper way to correct improper closing arguments, because it allows the trial court to weigh the impact of the comments and assess curative measures.” Id., (quoting Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted)). [¶52] Mr. Testerman has met the first prong of the plain error test because both incidents alleged as error are clearly reflected in the trial transcript.

2002The plain error standard of review set out in our discussion of the first issue applies here as well given the defense did not object to any of the challenged statements. [127] In Trujillo v. State, 2002 WY 51, ¶ 5 , 44 P.3d 22, 15 (Wyo.2002), this court set forth the following broad guidelines found in the Standards for Criminal Justice which are *987 applicable to a prosecutor's arguments to a jury: (a) The prosecutor may argue all reasonable inferences from evidence in the record.