prosecutorial misconduct claim in Wyoming

2019Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 (reviewing for abuse of discretion a motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct); Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (“The abuse of discretion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.”) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997).

2017“The abuse of discre tion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.” Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 ; Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997)). ■ [¶25] Mr. Triplett claims the prosecutor should have obtained permission from the district court before asking Ms. Wilson if any of her siblings had accused Mr. Triplett of misconduct.

2025See Large v. State, 2008 WY 22, ¶ 29 , 177 P.3d 807, 816 (Wyo. 2008) (recognizing that we typically require an appellant to demonstrate prejudice to prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim except in right to silence cases where we apply an error per se rule). 3 the statement amounted to a “reference” to silence which is only reversible if Mr. Patterson shows he was prejudiced.

2025See Large v. State, 2008 WY 22, ¶ 29 , 177 P.3d 807, 816 (Wyo. 2008) (recognizing that we typically require an appellant to demonstrate prejudice to prevail on a prosecutorial misconduct claim except in right to silence cases where we apply an error per se rule). 3 the statement amounted to a “reference” to silence which is only reversible if Mr. Patterson shows he was prejudiced.

2019Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 (reviewing for abuse of discretion a motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct); Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (“The abuse of discretion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.”) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997).

2017“The abuse of discre tion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.” Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 ; Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997)). ■ [¶25] Mr. Triplett claims the prosecutor should have obtained permission from the district court before asking Ms. Wilson if any of her siblings had accused Mr. Triplett of misconduct.

2019Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 (reviewing for abuse of discretion a motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct); Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (“The abuse of discretion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.”) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997).

2017“The abuse of discre tion standard applies even when the defendant bases his motion for a mistrial upon a prosecutorial misconduct claim.” Yellowbear, ¶ 66, 174 P.3d at 1295 ; Capshaw v. State, 958 P.2d 387, 390 (Wyo. 1998) (citing Rubio v. State, 939 P.2d 238, 241 (Wyo. 1997)). ■ [¶25] Mr. Triplett claims the prosecutor should have obtained permission from the district court before asking Ms. Wilson if any of her siblings had accused Mr. Triplett of misconduct.

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2019See, e.g., Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37 , ¶ 49, 438 P.3d 216, 234 (Wyo. 2019) (“Read in context, however, it is evident the statements do not invade the province of the jury.”); Larkins v. State, 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 95, 429 P.3d 28, 50 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“When a defendant asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, we review the entire argument, and do not isolate discrete parts of the argument that may be taken out of context.”); King v. State, 2018 WY 52 , ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 657, 660 (Wyo. 2018) (citations omitted) (“Where the prosecutorial misconduct claim is one of impro

2018Bustos v. State , 2008 WY 37 , ¶ 9, 180 P.3d 904 , 907 (Wyo. 2008) ; see also Phillips v. State , 2007 WY 25 , ¶¶ 8-9, 151 P.3d 1131 , 1134 (Wyo. 2007).

2018Bustos v. State , 2008 WY 37 , ¶ 9, 180 P.3d 904 , 907 (Wyo. 2008) ; see also Phillips v. State , 2007 WY 25 , ¶¶ 8-9, 151 P.3d 1131 , 1134 (Wyo. 2007).