rationale behind rule in Wyoming

2013Metzger, 709 P.2d at 417 (quoting Williams v. Elias, [ 140 Neb. 656 ,] 1 N.W.2d 121, 124 (Neb.1941).) This was done because the plaintiff in Metzger could not identify the exact point in time he was injured by the physician.

2013Metzger, 709 P.2d at 417 (quoting Williams v. Elias, [ 140 Neb. 656 ,] 1 N.W.2d 121, 124 (Neb.1941).) This was done because the plaintiff in Metzger could not identify the exact point in time he was injured by the physician.

2020The party has prevented performance and, again, breached his good faith obligation to perform by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.” In re Old Carco LLC, 452 B.R. 100, 120-21 (Bankr.

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2018See generally, Hawes v. State, 2014 WY 127, ¶ 8 , 335 P.3d 1073, 1076 (Wyo. 2014) (holding that, although the appellant did not renew his motion for judgment'of acquittal after presenting evidence, his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction was still reviewable on appeal). [¶26] The State argues that, given Mr. Thompson failed to make this argument in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal, we should review for plain error.

2018See generally, Hawes v. State, 2014 WY 127, ¶ 8 , 335 P.3d 1073, 1076 (Wyo. 2014) (holding that, although the appellant did not renew his motion for judgment'of acquittal after presenting evidence, his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction was still reviewable on appeal). [¶26] The State argues that, given Mr. Thompson failed to make this argument in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal, we should review for plain error.

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2018The rationale behind this rule is that “it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court.” Silva v. State, 2014 WY 155, ¶9 , 338 P.3d 934, 936-37 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Belden v. Lampert, 2011 WY 83, ¶ 11 , 251 P.3d 325, 328-29 (Wyo. 2011)). [¶25] However, we stated in Garay v. State, 2007 WY 130, ¶2, n.1 , 165 P.3d 99, 101, n.1 (Wyo. 2007), “the proposition that a defendant’s guilt must be proved with competent evidence bearing upon each of the

2008Id. at 191 . 2 See also, Daugherty, ¶¶ 33-44, 44 P.3d at 38-40 (applying Rule 32(c)(1)). [¶ 7] We explained the rationale behind the rule as follows: The rule that we espouse protects important rights of the convicted defendant.