7 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2011See, eg., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2540-41 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). [¶11] In deciding whether a defendant has entered a valid waiver of counsel, we determine first whether the defendant's waiver was voluntary. 2011See, eg., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 , 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2540-41 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). [¶11] In deciding whether a defendant has entered a valid waiver of counsel, we determine first whether the defendant's waiver was voluntary. | 1 | 1 |
Justice v. Stategreen1 sentence2003In support of his claim, Mr. Gomez cites Justice v. State, 775 P.2d 1002, 1010-11 (Wyo.1989), for the proposition that admitting a victim's testimony as to the impact of the crime is error. [16] We have considered the admissibility of victim impact evidence in several cases and have applied the following principles. | 1 | 1 |
City of Seattle v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2002See City of Seattle v. Edwards, 87 Wash.App. 305, 308 , 941 P.2d 697 (1997) (discussing protective order issued pursuant to RCW 26.50.060(2)). 2002See City of Seattle v. Edwards, 87 Wash.App. 305, 308 , 941 P.2d 697 (1997) (discussing protective order issued pursuant to RCW 26.50.060(2)). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Moreover, under Rule 401, uncharged misconduct can unquestionably be logically relevant to prove a general mens rea.... [I]t is unsound to routinely exclude uncharged acts offered to prove a general mens rea for the stated reason that the acts are logically irrelevant.” Mitchell v. State, 865 P.2d 591, 599 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Edwaed J. | 1 | 1 |
Van Dean v. Stategreen2 sentences1991We first note that the district court was correct when it stated that Wyoming has not recognized a diminished capacity defense. [10] In Dean v. State, 668 P.2d 639, 645 (Wyo. 1983), this Court affirmed the district court's decision to reject diminished capacity and irresistible impulse instructions because the legislature has set forth the standard [in Wyo. 1991We first note that the district court was correct when it stated that Wyoming has not recognized a diminished capacity defense. 10 In Dean v. State, 668 P.2d 639, 645 (Wyo.1983), this Court affirmed the district court’s décision to reject diminished capacity and irresistible impulse instructions because the legislature has set forth the standard [in Wyo.Stat. §§ 7-11-301 to -304 (1987) [ 11 ] relative to the mental condition which will constitute a defense to a criminal charge. | 1 | 1 |
Madrid v. Stategreen1 sentence1980Cr.P.: “(b) Plain error-Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” See Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690 (1978); and Cullin v. State, Wyo., 565 P.2d 445 (1977). “ * * * For this court to invoke the plain-error rule, as embodied in Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P., three specific criteria must be fulfilled: first, the record must be clear as to the incident that occurred at trial that is alleged as error; second, the proponent of the rule must demonstrate a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and third | 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. Franklin Delano Gipson
green
2 sentences1992Incidentally, the court in footnote distinguished Gipson, 553 F.2d 453 as "inapposite" in stating: Subsequent federal cases have found Gipson inapplicable where the jury is not specifically instructed on non-unanimity but is instructed on the alternative methods of committing a crime and on the requirement of a unanimous verdict. 1992Incidentally, the court in footnote distinguished Gipson, 553 F.2d 453 as “inapposite” in stating: Subsequent federal cases have found Gipson inapplicable where the jury is not specifically instructed on non-unanimity but is instructed on the alternative methods of committing a crime and on the requirement of a unanimous verdict. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Charles Lidge Bolts and Joe Dee Hicks
green
2 sentences1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). 1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. James R. Pavloski
green
2 sentences1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). 1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gonzales v. United States
green
2 sentences1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). 1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Rice v. Colorado
green
2 sentences1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). 1992United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cullin v. State
green
1 sentence1980Cr.P.: “(b) Plain error-Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” See Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690 (1978); and Cullin v. State, Wyo., 565 P.2d 445 (1977). “ * * * For this court to invoke the plain-error rule, as embodied in Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P., three specific criteria must be fulfilled: first, the record must be clear as to the incident that occurred at trial that is alleged as error; second, the proponent of the rule must demonstrate a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and third | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Russell v. State
green
1 sentence1980Cr.P.: “(b) Plain error-Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” See Russell v. State, Wyo., 583 P.2d 690 (1978); and Cullin v. State, Wyo., 565 P.2d 445 (1977). “ * * * For this court to invoke the plain-error rule, as embodied in Rule 49(b), W.R.Cr.P., three specific criteria must be fulfilled: first, the record must be clear as to the incident that occurred at trial that is alleged as error; second, the proponent of the rule must demonstrate a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and third | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.