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.
47 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vaughn v. Stategreen2 sentences2020We clarified the definition of an abuse of discretion when we stated the core of our inquiry must reach “the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court.” Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998). 2012The core of our inquiry must reach 'the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court' Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998). 'Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously' Id. (quoting Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495 , 704 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1985)); Basolo [v. Basolol, 907 P.2d [348] at 353 [Wyo. 1995]. | 21 | 21 |
Byerly v. Madsengreen2 sentences2012The core of our inquiry must reach 'the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court' Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998). 'Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously' Id. (quoting Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495 , 704 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1985)); Basolo [v. Basolol, 907 P.2d [348] at 353 [Wyo. 1995]. 2012The core of our inquiry must reach 'the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court' Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998). 'Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously' Id. (quoting Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495 , 704 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1985)); Basolo [v. Basolol, 907 P.2d [348] at 353 [Wyo. 1995]. | 10 | 12 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Henceforth, we will turn to a definition adopted in Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo.1986), in which we said: Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. 2008In Vaughn, we reaffirmed our adoption in Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo.1986), of the following standard: Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. | 10 | 10 |
Ronald Ray Blanchard v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2023“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) is that the defendant in a criminal case 3 should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.” Jackson v. State, 2021 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 492 P.3d 911, 915 (Wyo. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020)). 2023“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) is that the defendant in a criminal case 3 should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.” Jackson v. State, 2021 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 492 P.3d 911, 915 (Wyo. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020)). | 4 | 5 |
Leyva v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) ‘is that the defendant in a criminal case should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Vinson v. State, 2020 WY 93, ¶ 17 , 467 P.3d 1009, 1012 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 19 , 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo. 2007))). 6. 2021“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) ‘is that the defendant in a criminal case should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Vinson v. State, 2020 WY 93, ¶ 17 , 467 P.3d 1009, 1012 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 19 , 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo. 2007))). 6. | 4 | 4 |
Timothy James Russell v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). 2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). | 3 | 4 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). 2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). | 3 | 3 |
Pace v. Pacegreen2 sentences2007We recently clarified the definition of an abuse of discretion when we stated the core of our inquiry must reach "the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court." Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998); see also Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43,¶ 9 , 22 P.3d 861 , ¶ 9 Wyo.2001). 2007We recently clarified the definition of an abuse of discretion when we stated the core of our inquiry must reach "the question of reasonableness of the choice made by the trial court." Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998); see also Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43,¶ 9 , 22 P.3d 861 , ¶ 9 Wyo.2001). | 3 | 3 |
Michael Delwin Vinson v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2021A. Palmer, Rule 404(b), and Consciousness of Guilt Evidence [¶10] “A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) ‘is that the defendant in a criminal case should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Vinson v. State, 2020 WY 93, ¶ 17 , 467 P.3d 1009, 1012 (Wyo. 2020)). 2021A. Palmer, Rule 404(b), and Consciousness of Guilt Evidence [¶10] “A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) ‘is that the defendant in a criminal case should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Vinson v. State, 2020 WY 93, ¶ 17 , 467 P.3d 1009, 1012 (Wyo. 2020)). | 2 | 4 |
Dobbins v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“The core of our inquiry focuses upon the reasonableness of the district court’s decision” and we will affirm that decision “unless the court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason and could not rationally conclude as it did.” Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013); Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 29 , 298 P.3d 807, 815 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo. 2004)). 2022“The core of our inquiry focuses upon the reasonableness of the district court’s decision” and we will affirm that decision “unless the court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason and could not rationally conclude as it did.” Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013); Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 29 , 298 P.3d 807, 815 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo. 2004)). | 2 | 2 |
Fix v. South Wilderness Ranch HomeOwners Assn.green2 sentences2013Fiz v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, 2012 WY 96, ¶ 12 , 280 P.3d 527, 531 (Wyo.2012); Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's, Inc., 2011 WY 102, ¶ 40 , 255 P.3d 920, 932 (Wyo.2011). 2013Fiz v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, 2012 WY 96, ¶ 12 , 280 P.3d 527, 531 (Wyo.2012); Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's, Inc., 2011 WY 102, ¶ 40 , 255 P.3d 920, 932 (Wyo.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's Inc.green2 sentences2013Fiz v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, 2012 WY 96, ¶ 12 , 280 P.3d 527, 531 (Wyo.2012); Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's, Inc., 2011 WY 102, ¶ 40 , 255 P.3d 920, 932 (Wyo.2011). 2013Fiz v. South Wilderness Ranch Homeowners Ass'n, 2012 WY 96, ¶ 12 , 280 P.3d 527, 531 (Wyo.2012); Magin v. Solitude Homeowner's, Inc., 2011 WY 102, ¶ 40 , 255 P.3d 920, 932 (Wyo.2011). | 2 | 2 |
Kirk Erwin Steffey v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). 2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). | 1 | 2 |
Bradley Dean Jackson v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2023“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) is that the defendant in a criminal case 3 should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.” Jackson v. State, 2021 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 492 P.3d 911, 915 (Wyo. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020)). 2023“A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) is that the defendant in a criminal case 3 should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.” Jackson v. State, 2021 WY 92, ¶ 10 , 492 P.3d 911, 915 (Wyo. 2021) (cleaned up) (quoting Blanchard v. State, 2020 WY 97, ¶ 18 , 468 P.3d 685, 691 (Wyo. 2020)). | 1 | 2 |
Cantrell v. Sweetwater County School District No. 2green1 sentence2026Cantrell, ¶ 6, 133 P.3d at 985. “[O]ur goal is to give effect to the intent of These are not fringe or hypothetical laws; they are the core framework under which the practice of medicine and public health have operated in Wyoming for decades. | 1 | 1 |
Dewey v. Deweygreen2 sentences2025Dewey v. Dewey, 2001 WY 107, ¶ 18 , 33 P.3d 1143, 1148 (Wyo. 2001). 2025Dewey v. Dewey, 2001 WY 107, ¶ 18 , 33 P.3d 1143, 1148 (Wyo. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Carter, 2010 WY 136, ¶ 6 , 241 P.3d at 480–81. 2023See Carter, 2010 WY 136, ¶ 6 , 241 P.3d at 480–81. | 1 | 1 |
Dustin Arthur Cox v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2022Cox v. State, 2020 WY 147, ¶ 20 , 477 P.3d 82, 86 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Putnam v. State, 2020 WY 133, ¶ 30 , 474 P.3d 613, 622 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶35] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) is that a jury should not convict a defendant due to his bad character or for prior misdeeds, but only if he is guilty of the charged crime(s). 2022Cox v. State, 2020 WY 147, ¶ 20 , 477 P.3d 82, 86 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Putnam v. State, 2020 WY 133, ¶ 30 , 474 P.3d 613, 622 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶35] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) is that a jury should not convict a defendant due to his bad character or for prior misdeeds, but only if he is guilty of the charged crime(s). | 1 | 1 |
Ty Putnam v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2022Cox v. State, 2020 WY 147, ¶ 20 , 477 P.3d 82, 86 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Putnam v. State, 2020 WY 133, ¶ 30 , 474 P.3d 613, 622 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶35] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) is that a jury should not convict a defendant due to his bad character or for prior misdeeds, but only if he is guilty of the charged crime(s). 2022Cox v. State, 2020 WY 147, ¶ 20 , 477 P.3d 82, 86 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Putnam v. State, 2020 WY 133, ¶ 30 , 474 P.3d 613, 622 (Wyo. 2020)). [¶35] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) is that a jury should not convict a defendant due to his bad character or for prior misdeeds, but only if he is guilty of the charged crime(s). | 1 | 1 |
Van Haele v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“The core of our inquiry focuses upon the reasonableness of the district court’s decision” and we will affirm that decision “unless the court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason and could not rationally conclude as it did.” Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013); Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 29 , 298 P.3d 807, 815 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo. 2004)). 2022“The core of our inquiry focuses upon the reasonableness of the district court’s decision” and we will affirm that decision “unless the court acted in a manner exceeding the bounds of reason and could not rationally conclude as it did.” Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013); Dobbins v. State, 2012 WY 110, ¶ 29 , 298 P.3d 807, 815 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Van Haele v. State, 2004 WY 59, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 708, 713 (Wyo. 2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Mersereau v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“If we determine the court abused its discretion in admitting 404(b) evidence, ‘we must also determine whether the error was prejudicial.’” Id. (quoting Mersereau v. State, 2012 WY 125, ¶ 17 , 286 P.3d 97, 106 (Wyo. 2012)). 3 DISCUSSION [¶17] A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) “is that the defendant in a criminal case ‘should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 19 , 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting 1 Christopher B. 2020“If we determine the court abused its discretion in admitting 404(b) evidence, ‘we must also determine whether the error was prejudicial.’” Id. (quoting Mersereau v. State, 2012 WY 125, ¶ 17 , 286 P.3d 97, 106 (Wyo. 2012)). 3 DISCUSSION [¶17] A core principle of Wyoming Rule of Evidence 404(b) “is that the defendant in a criminal case ‘should not be convicted because he is an unsavory person, nor because of past misdeeds, but only because of his guilt of the particular crime charged.’” Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 19 , 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting 1 Christopher B. | 1 | 1 |
Dietrich v. Stategreen1 sentence2020We have recognized that misdeeds of a defendant or other acts evidence “carries an inherent danger for prejudice.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1243 (Wyo. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2010We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Cobb v. Cobb, 2 P.3d 578, 579 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 983 P.2d 717, 719 (Wyo.1999)). 2010We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Cobb v. Cobb, 2 P.3d 578, 579 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 983 P.2d 717, 719 (Wyo.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Cobb v. Cobbgreen2 sentences2010We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Cobb v. Cobb, 2 P.3d 578, 579 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 983 P.2d 717, 719 (Wyo.1999)). 2010We must ask ourselves whether the district court could reasonably conclude as it did and whether any facet of its ruling was arbitrary or capricious." Cobb v. Cobb, 2 P.3d 578, 579 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Thomas v. Thomas, 983 P.2d 717, 719 (Wyo.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
| Carlton v. Carltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rick Webb v. Abf Freight System, Inc., a Corporation, and Teamsters Local Union No. 17green | 1 | 1 |
| Fergusson v. Fergussongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Shradergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Turcq v. Shanahangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Addakai v. Wittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. HAC, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gregory Clyde Wanberg v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2024“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Delgado, ¶ 26, 509 P.3d at 923 (citing Russell v. State, 2013 WY 137, ¶ 9 , 312 P.3d 76, 78 (Wyo. 2013), and Jackson v. State, 2012 WY 56, ¶ 6 , 273 P.3d 1105, 1107 (Wyo. 2012)). “‘A court abuses its discretion only when it could not reasonably decide as it did.’” Wanberg, ¶ 14, 466 P.3d at 273 (quoting Steffey v. State, 2019 WY 101, ¶ 17 , 449 P.3d 1100, 1105 (Wyo. 2019)). 2022“The core of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the district court’s decision.” Id. (citing Russell, ¶ 9, 312 P.3d at 78 ). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Basolo v. Basolo
green
2 sentences2000“Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.” Id. (quoting Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495 , 704 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1985)); Basolo, 907 P.2d at 353 . 1999“Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.” Id. (quoting Byerly v. Madsen, 41 Wash.App. 495 , 704 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1985)); Basolo, 907 P.2d at 353 . | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Matthew Justin Olson v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr 2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Leon Van Buren Freer v. The State of Wyoming
green
2 sentences2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr 2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gleason v. State
green
2 sentences2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr 2025It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake 2 Gleason v. State, 2002 WY 161, ¶ 27 , 57 P.3d 332 , 342–43 (Wyo. 2002). 3 or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. [¶11] A core principle of W.R.E. 404(b) “is that the defendant in a cr | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Moser v. State
green
1 sentence2020We have recognized that misdeeds of a defendant or other acts evidence “carries an inherent danger for prejudice.” Moser v. State, 2018 WY 12, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1236, 1243 (Wyo. 2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Scott v. Norfolk Southern Corp. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Branchburg Plaza Associates, L.P. v. Fesq green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.