approved instruction in Wyoming

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025 [(1897)]; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 lowa 794, 285 NW. 249 [(1939) ]; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Towa 1365, 1369, 44 N.W.2d 408 [ (1950) ].

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 Iowa 794 , 285 N.W. 249 ; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Iowa 1365, 1369 , 44 N.W.2d 403 .

1983Application of the rule must be made on a case-to-case basis. * * * ” ⅜ Hf ⅝ ⅝ * ⅜ “Further, in Jerskey v. State, supra, 546 P.2d at 183 , the court approved the principle that forbidden statements are reversible error where the prosecution has used a defendant’s silence as a means of creating an inference of guilt; nor can there here be any inference ‘that an honest answer would have established the appellant’s guilt,’ Jerskey at page 183.

1981Further, in Jerskey v. State, supra, 546 P.2d at 183 , the court approved the principle that forbidden statements are reversible error where the prosecution has used a defendant's silence as a means of creating an inference of guilt; nor can there here be any inference "that an honest answer would have established the appellant's guilt," Jerskey at page 183.

2020Tillett, 637 P.2d at 265 n.2.

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 Iowa 794 , 285 N.W. 249 ; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Iowa 1365, 1369 , 44 N.W.2d 403 .

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025 [(1897)]; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 lowa 794, 285 NW. 249 [(1939) ]; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Towa 1365, 1369, 44 N.W.2d 408 [ (1950) ].

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 Iowa 794 , 285 N.W. 249 ; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Iowa 1365, 1369 , 44 N.W.2d 403 .

2015Bailments, § 3(2) p. 328; Bentley & Olmstead v. Snyder & Son, 101 Iowa 1 , 69 N.W. 1023 , 1025; Hansen v. Kuhn, 226 Iowa 794 , 285 N.W. 249 ; Hull-Dobbs Motor Co. v. Associates Discount Corp., 241 Iowa 1365, 1369 , 44 N.W.2d 403 .

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, “Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence.” Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, "Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence." Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, “Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence.” Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, "Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence." Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, “Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence.” Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, "Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence." Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, “Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence.” Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1989This Court approved an instruction similar to Instruction No. 8 in State v. Hines, 79 Wyo. 65 , 331 P.2d 605 (1958), cert. denied 366 U.S. 972 , 81 S.Ct. 1938 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1261 (1961), and the instruction is taken virtually verbatim from WPJIC § 2.201, “Efforts by Defendant to Alter Evidence.” Appellant argues, nevertheless, that Hines was decided before the Wyoming Rules of Evidence became effective and that the testimony regarding intimidation should not have been admitted in the absence of a consideration of W.R.E. 404(b) regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac

1984In Krucheck v. State, Wyo., 671 P.2d 1222 (1983), consistent with Sandstrom, we disapproved an instruction that said, “ ‘The use of a deadly weapon in a deadly or dangerous manner raises the presumption of malice.’ ” Rule 303(c), Wyoming Rules of Evidence provides: “Instructing the jury. — Whenever the existence of a presumed fact against the accused is submitted to the jury, the court shall instruct the jury that it may regard the basic facts as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact but is not required to do so.

1984In County Court of Ulster County, New York v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), decided within two weeks after Sandstrom , the Court approved an instruction that advised the jury that it “may infer” the presumed fact.

1984In County Court of Ulster County, New York v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 , 99 S.Ct. 2213 , 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), decided within two weeks after Sandstrom , the Court approved an instruction that advised the jury that it “may infer” the presumed fact.

1983In Hoskins v. State, Wyo., 552 P.2d 342 (1976), this court approved the rule that in reviewing the propriety of a supplemental instruction given the jury, the instructions have to be considered as a whole and the supplemental instruction examined in the light of the other instructions previously given.

1983In Hoskins v. State, Wyo., 552 P.2d 342 (1976), this court approved the rule that in reviewing the propriety of a supplemental instruction given the jury, the instructions have to be considered as a whole and the supplemental instruction examined in the light of the other instructions previously given.

1976We now can see no objection to the approved instruction being given after the jury has retired, in appropriate cases. [8] Instructions such as the one under discussion are referred to as of the Allen type because in a murder case, Allen v. United States, 1896, 164 U.S. 492, 501 , 17 S.Ct. 154, 157 , 41 L.Ed. 528, 530-31 , the United State Supreme Court held that it was not error to instruct a jury which had returned to the court for further instructions: "* * * that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each i

1976We now can see no objection to the approved instruction being given after the jury has retired, in appropriate cases. [8] Instructions such as the one under discussion are referred to as of the Allen type because in a murder case, Allen v. United States, 1896, 164 U.S. 492, 501 , 17 S.Ct. 154, 157 , 41 L.Ed. 528, 530-31 , the United State Supreme Court held that it was not error to instruct a jury which had returned to the court for further instructions: "* * * that in a large proportion of cases absolute certainty could not be expected; that, although the verdict must be the verdict of each i

1948“The rule is succinctly stated in Cooley on Torts, vol. 2, page 1259 (3d Ed.) viz.: £* * * When he (the owner or lessee) expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.’ “This court approved that rule in the case of Cincinati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175 , 147 N. E. 86 .

1948“The rule is succinctly stated in Cooley on Torts, vol. 2, page 1259 (3d Ed.) viz.: £* * * When he (the owner or lessee) expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.’ “This court approved that rule in the case of Cincinati Base Ball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175 , 147 N. E. 86 .