7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byron Nelson Griggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“Finally, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, the appellant bears the burden of establishing the error caused material prejudice.” Id. (citing Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 123 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016)). 2025“Finally, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, the appellant bears the burden of establishing the error caused material prejudice.” Id. (citing Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 123 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016)). | 2 | 3 |
Monique Huia Sullivan v. The State of Wyominggreen1 sentence2026Sullivan, ¶ 19, 561 P.3d at 786 (citation modified). | 1 | 1 |
Roderick v. Stategreen1 sentence1998Roderick v. State, 858 P.2d 538, 544 (Wyo.1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mercergreen2 sentences1981The only reason I can see that the North Carolina court even went into the question was to reverse the holding of a previous case which held that the defendant does not have the burden of proving unconsciousness. ( State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108, 117 , 165 S.E.2d 328, 335 (1969), also cited by the majority.) Its rule is now that the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense of unconsciousness because in North Carolina the defenses of insanity and unconsciousness are considered akin: "* * * We are unable to perceive a reasonable basis for distinction, in this respect, between insanity 1981The only reason I can see that the North Carolina court even went into the question was to reverse the holding of a previous case which held that the defendant does not have the burden of proving unconsciousness. ( State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108, 117 , 165 S.E.2d 328, 335 (1969), also cited by the majority.) Its rule is now that the defendant has the burden of establishing the defense of unconsciousness because in North Carolina the defenses of insanity and unconsciousness are considered akin: "* * * We are unable to perceive a reasonable basis for distinction, in this respect, between insanity | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Proffit v. State
green
1 sentence2025“Finally, even if the evidence was improperly admitted, the appellant bears the burden of establishing the error caused material prejudice.” Id. (citing Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 123 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
David Wayne Munda v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2024Munda v. State, 2023 WY 90, ¶ 21 , 535 P.3d 523 , 528 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 123 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016)). [¶13] On appeal, Mr. Olson admits “it was clearly relevant that he was incarcerated with Mr. Hendershott.” Likewise, he admits his alleged motive for wanting to kill SK to prevent her from testifying against him was relevant. 2024Munda v. State, 2023 WY 90, ¶ 21 , 535 P.3d 523 , 528 (Wyo. 2023) (citing Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 123 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016)). [¶13] On appeal, Mr. Olson admits “it was clearly relevant that he was incarcerated with Mr. Hendershott.” Likewise, he admits his alleged motive for wanting to kill SK to prevent her from testifying against him was relevant. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Spilman v. State
green
1 sentence1991Spilman v. State, 633 P.2d 183 (Wyo.1981). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.