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.
7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Causey v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶¶ 14, 20 , 215 P.3d 287, 292-94 (Wyo. 2009) (concluding the defendant failed to show the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the legal definition of provocation to be “an obvious transgression of any clear and unequivocal rule of law” because he failed to cite “any Wyoming case establishing a clear-cut rule of law that the jury must be instructed on a specialized legal definition of provocation”). [¶29] The prosecutor’s comments were also not prejudicial. 2020See also, Causey, ¶¶ 14, 20, 215 P.3d at 292-94 (concluding the defendant failed to show the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the legal definition of “provokes the conflict” to be “an obvious transgression of any clear and unequivocal rule of law” because he failed to cite “any Wyoming case establishing a clear-cut rule of law that the jury must be instructed on a specialized legal definition of provocation. | 5 | 5 |
Steven W. Vaught v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Wyoming law had a clear-cut requirement that juries be given the instruction he now champions." Tingey , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 (quoting Vaught , ¶ 14, 366 P.3d at 516 (footnote omitted)). 2017In a later case, Vaught v. State, we stated that "to establish that failure to give [a jury] instruction violated a clear rule of law, [an appellant] must provide authority showing that, at the time of his trial, Wyoming law had a clear-cut requirement that juries be given the instruction he now champions.” 2016 WY 7, ¶ 14 , 366 P.3d 512, 516 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶¶ 20-21 , 215 P.3d 287, 293-94 (Wyo. 2009) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
CG v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See CG, ¶ 15, 248 P.3d at 190 (upholding finding that officer’s application of compliance grip to defendant, which hurt her “a little,” and physically pulling her from van, was not excessive force). [¶44] Given the evidence, and the focus of the defense arguments, we are unable to find that there was a clear-cut requirement that an excessive force instruction be given, and we therefore find no plain error in the district court’s failure to give the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Kentucky v. Whortongreen2 sentences2010See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (per curiam ); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), and Slaughter v. State, 630 P.2d 517 (Wyo.1981). 2010See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (per curiam ); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), and Slaughter v. State, 630 P.2d 517 (Wyo.1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dominguez Benitez
green
2 sentences2020To establish prejudice under plain error review, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that the result would have been more favorable to [him] had the error not occurred.” Larkins, ¶ 94, 429 P.3d at 50 (citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 , 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2339 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004)). 8 [¶30] The prosecutor’s comments were brief and made in rebuttal closing argument in a case where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. 2020To establish prejudice under plain error review, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that the result would have been more favorable to [him] had the error not occurred.” Larkins, ¶ 94, 429 P.3d at 50 (citing United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 , 124 S.Ct. 2333, 2339 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004)). 8 [¶30] The prosecutor’s comments were brief and made in rebuttal closing argument in a case where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Larkins v. State
green
1 sentence2019Material prejudice requires Mr. Hopkins to demonstrate that there is a "reasonable probability that the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred." Larkins v. State , 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 94, 429 P.3d 28 , 50 (Wyo. 2018). [¶20] Mr. Hopkins does not identify a clear and unequivocal rule of law the district court violated and we have found none. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Cody J. Tingey v. State
green
1 sentence2019Wyoming law had a clear-cut requirement that juries be given the instruction he now champions." Tingey , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 (quoting Vaught , ¶ 14, 366 P.3d at 516 (footnote omitted)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Slaughter v. State
green
1 sentence2010See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (per curiam ); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), and Slaughter v. State, 630 P.2d 517 (Wyo.1981). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Taylor v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2010See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (per curiam ); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), and Slaughter v. State, 630 P.2d 517 (Wyo.1981). 2010See Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 , 99 S.Ct. 2088 , 60 L.Ed.2d 640 (1979) (per curiam ); Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 1930 , 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), and Slaughter v. State, 630 P.2d 517 (Wyo.1981). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.