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.
8 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2021Evans, 944 P.2d at 1124-25 . [¶39] An “accused’s extrajudicial statement” is deemed involuntary “until the State meets its burden of proving and persuading that the statement was made freely and voluntarily.” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1127 (referencing Maki v. State, 18 Wyo. 481, 485-86 , 112 P. 334, 335 (1911)). 2021Evans, 944 P.2d at 1124-25 . [¶39] An “accused’s extrajudicial statement” is deemed involuntary “until the State meets its burden of proving and persuading that the statement was made freely and voluntarily.” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1127 (referencing Maki v. State, 18 Wyo. 481, 485-86 , 112 P. 334, 335 (1911)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Piersongreen2 sentences2020Id., ¶ 12, --- P.3d at ---- (citing State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 303 P.3d 84, 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211 , 514 A.2d 724, 728 (1986); Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1179, 1176 (Ind. 1992)). 2020Id., ¶ 12, --- P.3d at ---- (citing State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 303 P.3d 84, 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211 , 514 A.2d 724, 728 (1986); Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1179, 1176 (Ind. 1992)). | 2 | 2 |
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguergreen2 sentences2020Id., ¶ 12, --- P.3d at ---- (citing State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 303 P.3d 84, 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211 , 514 A.2d 724, 728 (1986); Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1179, 1176 (Ind. 1992)). 2020Id., ¶ 12, --- P.3d at ---- (citing State v. Almaguer, 232 Ariz. 190 , 303 P.3d 84, 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211 , 514 A.2d 724, 728 (1986); Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1179, 1176 (Ind. 1992)). | 2 | 2 |
Granzer v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118, ¶¶ 18-19 , 193 P.3d 266, 271-72 (Wyo. 2008). 2020Granzer v. State, 2008 WY 118, ¶¶ 18-19 , 193 P.3d 266, 271-72 (Wyo. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Maki v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Evans, 944 P.2d at 1124-25 . [¶39] An “accused’s extrajudicial statement” is deemed involuntary “until the State meets its burden of proving and persuading that the statement was made freely and voluntarily.” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1127 (referencing Maki v. State, 18 Wyo. 481, 485-86 , 112 P. 334, 335 (1911)). 2021Evans, 944 P.2d at 1124-25 . [¶39] An “accused’s extrajudicial statement” is deemed involuntary “until the State meets its burden of proving and persuading that the statement was made freely and voluntarily.” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1127 (referencing Maki v. State, 18 Wyo. 481, 485-86 , 112 P. 334, 335 (1911)). | 1 | 1 |
Shantell Ann Wyant v. The State of Wyominggreen1 sentence2020See Wyant v. State, 2020 WY 15 , --- P.3d ---- (Wyo. 2020). | 1 | 1 |
Baird v. Stategreen1 sentence2020State v. Almaguer, 303 P.3d 84, 91 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (“An instruction that the state must prove the defendant committed a voluntary act is appropriate only if there is evidence to support a finding of bodily movement performed unconsciously and without effort and determination . . . .”); State v. Pierson, 514 A.2d 724, 728 (Conn. 1986) (“Our acknowledgement of the fundamental principle that a criminal act must be volitional does not mean that a charge to a jury that omits reference to this principle is constitutionally defective where the evidence at trial contains no suggestion that the d | 1 | 1 |
Pendleton v. Stategreen2 sentences2020In the letter, the juror sought leniency for Ms. Wyant and referred to Mr. Edgerton as the “predator” and Ms. Wyant as the “prey.” [¶15] “‘To establish prejudice [under plain error review], the appellant must show a reasonable probability that [she] would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the error.’” Sindelar, ¶ 20, 416 P.3d at 770 (quoting Pendleton v. State, 2008 WY 36, ¶ 11 , 180 P.3d 212, 216 (Wyo. 2008)). 2020In the letter, the juror sought leniency for Ms. Wyant and referred to Mr. Edgerton as the “predator” and Ms. Wyant as the “prey.” [¶15] “‘To establish prejudice [under plain error review], the appellant must show a reasonable probability that [she] would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the error.’” Sindelar, ¶ 20, 416 P.3d at 770 (quoting Pendleton v. State, 2008 WY 36, ¶ 11 , 180 P.3d 212, 216 (Wyo. 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Frias v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Evans, 944 P.2d 1120, 1125 (Wyo.1997) (confession); Frias v. State, 722 P.2d 135, 141-42 (Wyo.1986) (waiver). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bram v. United States
green
2 sentences2021Since its decision in Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542 , 18 S.Ct. 183, 187 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897), the voluntariness requirement has been a part of the United States Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. 2021Since its decision in Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542 , 18 S.Ct. 183, 187 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897), the voluntariness requirement has been a part of the United States Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence. | 4 | 1997–2021 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2012Additional constitutional requirements concerning voluntariness were imposed by the Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), for custodial interrogations. 2012Additional constitutional requirements concerning voluntariness were imposed by the Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), for custodial interrogations. | 3 | 1997–2012 |
Sindelar v. State
green
1 sentence2020In the letter, the juror sought leniency for Ms. Wyant and referred to Mr. Edgerton as the “predator” and Ms. Wyant as the “prey.” [¶15] “‘To establish prejudice [under plain error review], the appellant must show a reasonable probability that [she] would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the error.’” Sindelar, ¶ 20, 416 P.3d at 770 (quoting Pendleton v. State, 2008 WY 36, ¶ 11 , 180 P.3d 212, 216 (Wyo. 2008)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Seymore v. State
red
1 sentence2020No crime has been committed, for instance, if an adult community corrections resident fails to return to the facility because of disabling injuries suffered in an automobile accident or a natural calamity.” Id. [¶46] We recently rejected a similar argument that Seymore requires a voluntariness instruction whenever the charged crime is a general intent crime. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.