clear and unequivocal rule 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.

1991Appellant’s challenge fails, however, to pass the second portion of the test for plain error, which requires that the party claiming plain error must establish that “a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated.” Id. at 1164 .

1991Appellant's challenge fails, however, to pass the second portion of the test for plain error, which requires that the party claiming plain error must establish that "a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated." Id. at 1164 .

2018“To establish plain error, appellant must demonstrate 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.’ ” Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 40 , 148 P.3d 23, 35 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Belden, ¶ 38, 73 P.3d at 1087 ).

2018“To establish plain error, appellant must demonstrate 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.’ ” Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, ¶ 40 , 148 P.3d 23, 35 (Wyo. 2006) (quoting Belden, ¶ 38, 73 P.3d at 1087 ).

2020Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶¶ 14, 20 , 215 P.3d 287, 292-94 (Wyo. 2009) (to satisfy the second prong of plain error review, the error must be so “plainly erroneous that the judge should have noticed and corrected the mistake even though the parties failed to raise the issue”). [¶9] Ms. Wyant relies on Seymore v. State, 2007 WY 32 , 152 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2007) (abrogated on other grounds by Granzer, ¶¶ 13-19, 193 P.3d at 270-72 )), for the proposition that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on voluntariness violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law.3 Mr. Seymore was convicted

2020Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶¶ 14, 20 , 215 P.3d 287, 292-94 (Wyo. 2009) (to satisfy the second prong of plain error review, the error must be so “plainly erroneous that the judge should have noticed and corrected the mistake even though the parties failed to raise the issue”). [¶9] Ms. Wyant relies on Seymore v. State, 2007 WY 32 , 152 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2007) (abrogated on other grounds by Granzer, ¶¶ 13-19, 193 P.3d at 270-72 )), for the proposition that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on voluntariness violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law.3 Mr. Seymore was convicted

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.

2022See Doherty, ¶ 20, 131 P.3d at 969–70 (“Although wide latitude is allowed in discussing inferences to be drawn from the evidence, prosecutors must limit their closing arguments to commenting on the evidence.” (citing Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 22 , 100 P.3d 386, 392 (Wyo. 2004))); Montoya v. State, 971 P.2d 134 , 136–37 (Wyo. 1998) (“It is [well settled] law that an attorney’s arguments are limited to the evidence presented in the courtroom.” (citing Chavez-Becerra v. State, 924 P.2d 63, 70 (Wyo. 1996))); Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo. 1992) (“It is clear that great latitude is al

2022See Doherty, ¶ 20, 131 P.3d at 969–70 (“Although wide latitude is allowed in discussing inferences to be drawn from the evidence, prosecutors must limit their closing arguments to commenting on the evidence.” (citing Condra v. State, 2004 WY 131, ¶ 22 , 100 P.3d 386, 392 (Wyo. 2004))); Montoya v. State, 971 P.2d 134 , 136–37 (Wyo. 1998) (“It is [well settled] law that an attorney’s arguments are limited to the evidence presented in the courtroom.” (citing Chavez-Becerra v. State, 924 P.2d 63, 70 (Wyo. 1996))); Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 384 (Wyo. 1992) (“It is clear that great latitude is al

2015Our plain error analysis requires that an appellant "establish, by reference to the record, a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way and that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Joreski v. State, 2012 WY 143, ¶ 11 , 288 P.3d 413, 416 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Jealous v. State, 2011 WY 171, ¶11 , 267 P.3d 1101, 1104 (Wyo.2011)).

2015Our plain error analysis requires that an appellant "establish, by reference to the record, a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way and that the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice." Joreski v. State, 2012 WY 143, ¶ 11 , 288 P.3d 413, 416 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Jealous v. State, 2011 WY 171, ¶11 , 267 P.3d 1101, 1104 (Wyo.2011)).

2003To show plain error, Belden needs 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." Id. (citing Arevalo v. State, 939 P.2d 228, 232 (Wyo.1997)). [¶ 34] At the commencement of his closing argument, the prosecutor quickly summarized the evidence produced during trial.

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.

2020Nothing about this case approaches a “fundamental error” or constitutes “exceptional circumstances.” We should simply determine the question and answer were not prejudicial, and not address the second element of plain error—whether there was an obvious violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law. [¶22] In 1977, Justice Thomas attempted to provide more specific guidance for the application of plain error, and stated there must exist “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, 5

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.

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)).

2024See Person v. State, 2023 WY 26, ¶ 71 , 526 P.3d 61, 78 (Wyo. 2023) (failure to properly instruct jury on elements of crime is error); Weston, 2019 WY 113, ¶ 29 , 451 P.3d at 767 (“[T]he district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law by failing to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of substantial step.”); Compton v. State, 931 P.2d 936, 941 (Wyo. 1997) (finding error in failure to provide statutory definition of substantial step). [¶19] The disputed question is whether the erroneous instruction materially prejudiced Mr. Lee.

2007That standard places the burden on Mr. Lawrence to demonstrate that "the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely af-feeted a substantial right." Id. (quoting Compton v. State, 931 P.2d 936, 939 (Wyo.1997)).

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))....

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

2018It also argues that the W.R.E. 608(b) prohibition on using extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of conduct does not apply because the questions concerned "Dr. Young's credibility, bias, and character for truthfulness." It argues that "[t]he State's questioning elicited testimony properly exposing Dr. Young's motivation for testifying and any bias which may have tinged his testimony." Alternatively, the State argues that even if the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way, Mr. Nielsen suffered no prejudice because there was "no reasonable pos

2018It also argues that the W.R.E. 608(b) prohibition on using extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of conduct does not apply because the questions concerned "Dr. Young's credibility, bias, and character for truthfulness." It argues that "[t]he State's questioning elicited testimony properly exposing Dr. Young's motivation for testifying and any bias which may have tinged his testimony." Alternatively, the State argues that even if the prosecutor violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way, Mr. Nielsen suffered no prejudice because there was "no reasonable pos

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

2023To satisfy the second prong, Mr. Hembree must demonstrate the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law which was transgressed “in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way.” Brown v. State, 2019 WY 102, ¶ 13 , 450 P.3d 208, 211 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45, ¶ 30 , 228 P.3d 874, 885 (Wyo. 2010)).

2023To satisfy the second prong, Mr. Hembree must demonstrate the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law which was transgressed “in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way.” Brown v. State, 2019 WY 102, ¶ 13 , 450 P.3d 208, 211 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Schreibvogel v. State, 2010 WY 45, ¶ 30 , 228 P.3d 874, 885 (Wyo. 2010)).

2014To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate "that the record patently demonstrates the district court transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law and such violation adversely affected his substantial right." Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6 , 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo.2009), citing Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo.2004).

2014To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate "that the record patently demonstrates the district court transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law and such violation adversely affected his substantial right." Sandoval v. State, 2009 WY 121, ¶ 6 , 217 P.3d 393, 395 (Wyo.2009), citing Manes v. State, 2004 WY 70, ¶ 9 , 92 P.3d 289, 292 (Wyo.2004).

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).

2026DISCUSSION [¶14] To establish plain error, Mr. Atkinson must show: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the alleged error violates a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) []he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice.” Jewkes, ¶ 8, 513 P.3d at 158 (citing Ridinger, ¶ 33, 478 P.3d at 1168 ). “[M]aterial prejudice means a reasonable probability exists that the result would have been more favorable in the absence of the alleged error.” Velasquez v. State, 2026 WY 11, ¶ 18 , 582 P.3d 915 , 920 (Wyo. 2026) (quoting Bruce v. State, 2015 WY 46 , ¶ 71, 346

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.

2005As to the second element — the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law — Harlow contends in his petition that the prosecutor’s remarks violated (1) the rule of Wilks v. State, 2002 WY 100, ¶ 8 , 49 P.3d 975, 981 (Wyo.2002) and Justice v. State, 775 P.2d 1002, 1010 (Wyo.1989), that victim impact evidence is inadmissible during the guilt phase of a trial, and (2) the rule of Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) and Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974), 9 that a prosecutor’s emotional remarks may

2005As to the second element — the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law — Harlow contends in his petition that the prosecutor’s remarks violated (1) the rule of Wilks v. State, 2002 WY 100, ¶ 8 , 49 P.3d 975, 981 (Wyo.2002) and Justice v. State, 775 P.2d 1002, 1010 (Wyo.1989), that victim impact evidence is inadmissible during the guilt phase of a trial, and (2) the rule of Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) and Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974), 9 that a prosecutor’s emotional remarks may

2024“Under plain error, an appellant must prove: ‘1) the record clearly reflects the incident urged as error; 2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) that he was materially prejudiced’ by the alleged error.” Gutierrez, 2020 WY 150, ¶ 5 , 477 P.3d at 530-31 (quoting Bogard v. State, 2019 WY 96, ¶ 21 , 449 P.3d 315 , 321 (Wyo. 2019)).

2024“Under plain error, an appellant must prove: ‘1) the record clearly reflects the incident urged as error; 2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) that he was materially prejudiced’ by the alleged error.” Gutierrez, 2020 WY 150, ¶ 5 , 477 P.3d at 530-31 (quoting Bogard v. State, 2019 WY 96, ¶ 21 , 449 P.3d 315 , 321 (Wyo. 2019)).

2025Id. [¶28] In Sindelar v. State, we determined that the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it incorrectly instructed that the defendant had an absolute duty to retreat if he was not the aggressor. 2018 WY 29 , ¶¶ 18-22, 416 P.3d 764, 770 (Wyo. 2018).

2025Id. [¶28] In Sindelar v. State, we determined that the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it incorrectly instructed that the defendant had an absolute duty to retreat if he was not the aggressor. 2018 WY 29 , ¶¶ 18-22, 416 P.3d 764, 770 (Wyo. 2018).

2021In re AGS, 2014 WY 143, ¶ 32 , 337 P.3d 470, 480 (Wyo. 2014); see also Hicks v. State, 2021 WY 2, ¶ 40 , 478 P.3d 652, 663 (Wyo. 2021) (“When performing a cumulative error analysis, ‘we consider only matters that were determined to be errors, and not any matter assigned as error but determined not to be erroneous.’”) (quoting Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 40 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1207 (Wyo. 2010)). [¶108] Although we have found that the juvenile court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it denied FR the opportunity to participate by phone in the initial hearing and failed to advise hi

2021In re AGS, 2014 WY 143, ¶ 32 , 337 P.3d 470, 480 (Wyo. 2014); see also Hicks v. State, 2021 WY 2, ¶ 40 , 478 P.3d 652, 663 (Wyo. 2021) (“When performing a cumulative error analysis, ‘we consider only matters that were determined to be errors, and not any matter assigned as error but determined not to be erroneous.’”) (quoting Sweet v. State, 2010 WY 87, ¶ 40 , 234 P.3d 1193, 1207 (Wyo. 2010)). [¶108] Although we have found that the juvenile court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it denied FR the opportunity to participate by phone in the initial hearing and failed to advise hi

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).

2017If you find that the defendant could have safely retreated but failed to do so, the defendant cannot rely on the justification of self-defense. [¶32] To prevail on his claim of plain error, Appellant must prove: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; (3) a clear and obvious transgression of that rule of law; and (4) the error adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to him.” Snow v. State, 2009 WY 117, ¶ 13 , 216 P.3d 505, 509 (Wyo. 2009); see also Tingey, ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 .

2017If you find that the defendant could have safely retreated but failed to do so, the defendant cannot rely on the justification of self-defense. [¶32] To prevail on his claim of plain error, Appellant must prove: “(1) the record clearly reflects the alleged error; (2) the existence of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; (3) a clear and obvious transgression of that rule of law; and (4) the error adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to him.” Snow v. State, 2009 WY 117, ¶ 13 , 216 P.3d 505, 509 (Wyo. 2009); see also Tingey, ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 .

1992Although the record is clear as to the testimony complained about, we hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate the "transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way." Jones, 580 P.2d at 1153 .

1992Although the record is clear as to the testimony complained about, we hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate the “transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious way.” Jones, 580 P.2d at 1153 .

2025“To establish plain error, ‘an appellant must prove: “1) the record clearly reflects the incident urged as error; 2) a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and 3) that he was materially prejudiced” by the alleged error.’” Sanchez, ¶ 12, 552 P.3d at 404 (quoting Soares, ¶ 18, 545 P.3d at 877); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 93, 429 P.3d 28, 49 (Wyo. 2018) (“Plain error review is the same regardless of whether the issue involved jury instructions, evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.”).

2024Soares v. State, 2024 WY 39, ¶ 18 , 545 P.3d 871, 876 (Wyo. 2024) (plain error requires that appellant show “a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law”). 7 that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence.” Int. of MA, 2022 WY 29, ¶ 26 , 505 P.3d 179 , 185 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting J.J.F. v. State, 2006 WY 41, ¶ 9 , 132 P.3d 170, 174 (Wyo. 2006)). [¶20] We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for return of seized property for an abuse of discretion.

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’”).