Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1926–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Booth v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“The function of a bill of particulars is ‘to make more specific the general allegations in the information to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and avoid being surprised at the trial.’” Heywood v. State, 2009 WY 70, ¶ 5 , 208 P.3d 71, 72 (Wyo. 2009) (Heywood II) (quoting Booth v. State, 517 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Wyo. 1974)). 2012The State declined to provide the other information sought by Mr. Counts, contending that it was not required to "disclose factual theories as to what constitutes confinement, removal, terrorizing, or inflicting bodily injury." The district court generally upheld the State's position. [¶41] "The function of a bill of particulars is 'to make more specific the general allegations in the information to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and avoid being surprised at the trial'" Heywood, ¶ 5, 208 P.3d at 72 , quoting Booth v. State, 517 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Wyo.1974). | 4 | 6 |
Heywood v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“The function of a bill of particulars is ‘to make more specific the general allegations in the information to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and avoid being surprised at the trial.’” Heywood v. State, 2009 WY 70, ¶ 5 , 208 P.3d 71, 72 (Wyo. 2009) (Heywood II) (quoting Booth v. State, 517 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Wyo. 1974)). 2022“The function of a bill of particulars is ‘to make more specific the general allegations in the information to enable the defendant to prepare his defense and avoid being surprised at the trial.’” Heywood v. State, 2009 WY 70, ¶ 5 , 208 P.3d 71, 72 (Wyo. 2009) (Heywood II) (quoting Booth v. State, 517 P.2d 1034, 1036 (Wyo. 1974)). | 1 | 2 |
Jason Christopher Durkee v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See id; see also Durkee, ¶ 37, 357 P.3d at 1116 ; Ortiz, ¶ 62, 326 P.3d at 896 . ~[162] Because Mr. Lafferty is responsible for most of the délay, he must demonstrate actual prefudiee. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joseph D. LaJeunesse v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2022To ensure proper notice of the accusations and enable the defendant to prepare a defense, these constitutional provisions and W.R.Cr.P. 3(e)(2)(B) require the information to: “(1) contain the elements of the offense charged; (2) fairly inform a defendant of the charges against which he must defend; and (3) enable a defendant to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” Id. at ¶ 32, 458 P.3d at 1223 (quoting Spagner, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Spagner v. State
green
1 sentence2022To ensure proper notice of the accusations and enable the defendant to prepare a defense, these constitutional provisions and W.R.Cr.P. 3(e)(2)(B) require the information to: “(1) contain the elements of the offense charged; (2) fairly inform a defendant of the charges against which he must defend; and (3) enable a defendant to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.” Id. at ¶ 32, 458 P.3d at 1223 (quoting Spagner, ¶ 10, 200 P.3d at 799 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gilbert Ortiz, Jr. v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2016See id; see also Durkee, ¶ 37, 357 P.3d at 1116 ; Ortiz, ¶ 62, 326 P.3d at 896 . ~[162] Because Mr. Lafferty is responsible for most of the délay, he must demonstrate actual prefudiee. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gonzales v. State
green
2 sentences1993Gonzales, 551 P.2d at 933 . 1993Gonzales, 551 P.2d at 933 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hampton v. State
green
1 sentence1978Further, this contention was not called to the attention of the trial court and will not be considered, Hampton v. State, Wyo., 558 P.2d 504, 507-508 , and cases cited. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence1926If the court shall be convinced that the county attorney had purposely failed to endorse on the information the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same, to render it difficult for the defendant to prepare his defense, the court may, under such circumstances, within its discretion, refuse to grant the request of the county attorney to endorse on the information the names of the additional witnesses; but in all eases where the request to endorse is made in good faith, and to promote justice, the court has the authority to grant the same, keeping in view the just admini | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.