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 1968–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cody J. Tingey v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See also, Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017) (“The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.”). 2021See also, Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017) (“The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.”). | 4 | 6 |
Terence James v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017) (“The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.”) (citing James v. State, 2015 WY 83, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 101, 105 (Wyo. 2015)). 2020See Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017) (“The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.”) (citing James v. State, 2015 WY 83, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 101, 105 (Wyo. 2015)). | 4 | 5 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Fundamentally, “the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Nelson, ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 ). [¶15] Some states have enacted statutes codifying the de minimis infraction defense. 2025Fundamentally, “the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Nelson, ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 ). [¶15] Some states have enacted statutes codifying the de minimis infraction defense. | 3 | 6 |
Bouwkamp v. Stategreen2 sentences2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). 1995In Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 (citations omitted), we said in this regard: The instruction must sufficiently inform the court of the defendant’s theory and must be supported by competent evidence. * * ⅜ However, there is another fundamental condition precedent which was not met by the offered instruction. | 2 | 10 |
Goodman v. Stategreen2 sentences1990"The right to an instruction * * * rests upon the conditions precedent * * * [that] the offered instruction [is] sufficient to inform the court of the defendant's theory and there [is] competent evidence in the record to support the theory." Goodman, 573 P.2d at 408 (emphasis in original). 1990“The right to an instruction * * * rests upon the conditions precedent * ⅜ * [that] the offered instruction [is] sufficient to inform the court of the defendant’s theory and there [is] competent evidence in the record to support the theory.” Goodman, 573 P.2d at 408 (emphasis in original). | 2 | 5 |
Sonjia Weinstein and Trey Warrengreen2 sentences2022Widdison v. State, 2018 WY 18 , ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 1205, 1211 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Weinstein v. Beach, 2014 WY 167 , ¶¶ 8–9, 340 P.3d 1013, 1016 (Wyo. 2014); K.C. v. State, 2011 WY 108, ¶ 7 , 257 P.3d 23 , 25–26 (Wyo. 2011)). 2022Widdison v. State, 2018 WY 18 , ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 1205, 1211 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Weinstein v. Beach, 2014 WY 167 , ¶¶ 8–9, 340 P.3d 1013, 1016 (Wyo. 2014); K.C. v. State, 2011 WY 108, ¶ 7 , 257 P.3d 23 , 25–26 (Wyo. 2011)). | 2 | 2 |
Hopkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2021A jury acquitted him of all charges. 6 STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶25] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Black, ¶ 22, 464 P.3d at 579 (quoting Hopkins v. State, 2019 WY 77 , ¶ 18, 445 P.3d 582, 588 (Wyo. 2019)). 2020Mr. Black filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. 7 STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶22] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Hopkins v. State, 2019 WY 77 , ¶ 18, 445 P.3d 582, 588 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 2017)). | 2 | 2 |
Swartz v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“An erroneous refusal of a theory of defense instruction is ‘reversible error per se.’” Black, ¶ 22, 464 P.3d at 579 (quoting Swartz v. State, 971 P.2d 137, 139 (Wyo. 1998)). 2020An erroneous refusal of a theory of defense instruction is “reversible error per se.” Swartz v. State, 971 P.2d 137, 139 (Wyo. 1998) (quoting Oien v. State, 797 P.2d 544, 549 (Wyo. 1990)); see also United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 1986) (“This right is so important that the failure to allow a defendant to present a theory of defense which is supported by sufficient evidence is reversible error.”). | 2 | 2 |
Stapleman v. Stategreen2 sentences1988(Citation omitted.) “If these two elements are present and prejudice results from the failure to instruct, * * * the error requires reversal.” Stapleman v. State, Wyo., 680 P.2d 73, 77 (1984). 1986“If these two elements are present and prejudice results from the failure to instruct, * * * the error requires reversal.” *581 (Emphasis added.) Stapleman v. State, Wyo., 680 P.2d 73, 77 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen2 sentences1990The "error lay in withholding an instruction pertinent to the issues involved * * *." Blakely, 474 P.2d at 129 . 1990The “error lay in withholding an instruction pertinent to the issues involved * * Blakely, 474 P.2d at 129 . | 1 | 3 |
Roger Keith Black v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶24] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Smith v. State, 2021 WY 28, ¶ 25 , 480 P.3d 532, 538 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Black v. State, 2020 WY 65, ¶ 22 , 464 P.3d 574, 579 (Wyo. 2020)). “[T]he question of whether the court invaded the province of the jury by making a factual determination” is a legal question that we also review de novo. 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶24] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Smith v. State, 2021 WY 28, ¶ 25 , 480 P.3d 532, 538 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Black v. State, 2020 WY 65, ¶ 22 , 464 P.3d 574, 579 (Wyo. 2020)). “[T]he question of whether the court invaded the province of the jury by making a factual determination” is a legal question that we also review de novo. | 1 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). 2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Krucheck v. Stategreen1 sentence2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Widdison v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Widdison v. State, 2018 WY 18 , ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 1205, 1211 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Weinstein v. Beach, 2014 WY 167 , ¶¶ 8–9, 340 P.3d 1013, 1016 (Wyo. 2014); K.C. v. State, 2011 WY 108, ¶ 7 , 257 P.3d 23 , 25–26 (Wyo. 2011)). | 1 | 1 |
Marty May Smith v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶24] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Smith v. State, 2021 WY 28, ¶ 25 , 480 P.3d 532, 538 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Black v. State, 2020 WY 65, ¶ 22 , 464 P.3d 574, 579 (Wyo. 2020)). “[T]he question of whether the court invaded the province of the jury by making a factual determination” is a legal question that we also review de novo. 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶24] “The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.” Smith v. State, 2021 WY 28, ¶ 25 , 480 P.3d 532, 538 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Black v. State, 2020 WY 65, ¶ 22 , 464 P.3d 574, 579 (Wyo. 2020)). “[T]he question of whether the court invaded the province of the jury by making a factual determination” is a legal question that we also review de novo. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Arthur Ortizgreen1 sentence2020An erroneous refusal of a theory of defense instruction is “reversible error per se.” Swartz v. State, 971 P.2d 137, 139 (Wyo. 1998) (quoting Oien v. State, 797 P.2d 544, 549 (Wyo. 1990)); see also United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 1986) (“This right is so important that the failure to allow a defendant to present a theory of defense which is supported by sufficient evidence is reversible error.”). | 1 | 1 |
Oien v. Stategreen1 sentence2020An erroneous refusal of a theory of defense instruction is “reversible error per se.” Swartz v. State, 971 P.2d 137, 139 (Wyo. 1998) (quoting Oien v. State, 797 P.2d 544, 549 (Wyo. 1990)); see also United States v. Ortiz, 804 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 1986) (“This right is so important that the failure to allow a defendant to present a theory of defense which is supported by sufficient evidence is reversible error.”). | 1 | 1 |
John Henry Knospler, Jr. v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Knospler v. State, 2016 WY 1, ¶ 22 , 366 P.3d 479, 485 (Wyo. 2016). [¶58] The offered instruction contains a valid statement of the law — it instructs that before he can assert a defense of self-defense, the defendant must believe he is in imminent danger and his belief must be a reasonable one, even if the danger is not present or immediate. 2017Knospler v. State, 2016 WY 1, ¶ 22 , 366 P.3d 479, 485 (Wyo. 2016). [¶58] The offered instruction contains a valid statement of the law — it instructs that before he can assert a defense of self-defense, the defendant must believe he is in imminent danger and his belief must be a reasonable one, even if the danger is not present or immediate. | 1 | 1 |
Montoya v. Grease Monkey Holding Corp.green1 sentence2012See Bouwkamp v. State, 883 P.2d 486, 490 (Wyo.1992) ("the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction"). | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Town of Aftongreen1 sentence2000Harmon v. Town of Afton, 745 P.2d 889, 891 (Wyo.1987). *1086 Even so, the appellants were entitled to have the district court give the offered instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Sanchez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hickenbottomgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Angus Hunt Ranch, Inc. v. Reb, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Kure v. Chevrolet Motor Divisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KC v. State
green
2 sentences2022Widdison v. State, 2018 WY 18 , ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 1205, 1211 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Weinstein v. Beach, 2014 WY 167 , ¶¶ 8–9, 340 P.3d 1013, 1016 (Wyo. 2014); K.C. v. State, 2011 WY 108, ¶ 7 , 257 P.3d 23 , 25–26 (Wyo. 2011)). 2022Widdison v. State, 2018 WY 18 , ¶ 15, 410 P.3d 1205, 1211 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Weinstein v. Beach, 2014 WY 167 , ¶¶ 8–9, 340 P.3d 1013, 1016 (Wyo. 2014); K.C. v. State, 2011 WY 108, ¶ 7 , 257 P.3d 23 , 25–26 (Wyo. 2011)). | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Arbenz Ex Rel. Seipt v. Debout
green
2 sentences1979We believe that in the latter situation the trial judge should follow the alternative offered by the rule wherein it is provided that he “ * * * may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence”, and deny *1323 the motion. * * * Arbenz, supra, quoting with approval from Rogge v. Weaver, Alaska, 368 P.2d 810, 813 . 1978Such disposition, undoubtedly meritorious in jurisdictions such as Alaska, which follow exactly the federal rule requiring findings, becomes particularly essential in Wyoming where findings are not obligatory.” 444 P.2d at 319 . | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Raigosa v. State
green
2 sentences1979The defendant failed to object to refusal of the trial judge to give the offered instruction; we will not consider it on review, Raigosa v. State, Wyo. 1977, 562 P.2d 1009 , unless it can be brought under the plain error doctrine, which we will not exercise except in exceptional circumstances, Hampton v. State, Wyo. 1977, 558 P.2d 504 . 1979The defendant failed to object to refusal of the trial judge to give the offered instruction; we will not consider it on review, Raigosa v. State, Wyo. 1977, 562 P.2d 1009 , unless it can be brought under the plain error doctrine, which we will not exercise except in exceptional circumstances, Hampton v. State, Wyo.1977, 558 P.2d 504 . | 2 | 1977–1979 |
Yvonne Patrice Kessel v. The State of Wyoming
green
1 sentence2024“Fundamentally, [a proposed theory of defense] instruction must in the first instance [set forth] a proper theory of . . . defense[.] That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” 3 Kessel, ¶ 15, 539 P.3d at 409 (quoting Nelson, ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). 2023That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶ 14, 245 P.3d at 286 (citing Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490 ). 3 [¶16] “It is established law in this Court and the United States Supreme Court that the State is required to prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt[.]” Hernandez v. State, 2007 WY 105, ¶ 11 , 162 P.3d 472, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (citing Krucheck v. State, 671 P.2d 1222, 1224 (Wyo. 1983); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 512 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pina v. Christensen
green
2 sentences2018Pina v. Christensen , 2009 WY 64 , ¶ 8, 206 P.3d 1298 , 1300 (Wyo. 2009). 2018Pina v. Christensen , 2009 WY 64 , ¶ 8, 206 P.3d 1298 , 1300 (Wyo. 2009). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Best v. State
green
2 sentences1988Best v. State, supra, 736 P.2d at 744 . 1988Best v. State, supra, 736 P.2d at 744 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Jackson v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Naugher v. State
green
2 sentences1987Sanchez v. State, supra ; Stapleman v. State, supra ; Naugher v. State, Wyo., 685 P.2d 37 (1984); Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751 , cert. denied 451 U.S. 989 , 101 S.Ct. 2327 , 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); Goodman v. State, supra ; Thomas v. State, supra ; Blakely v. State, supra ; State v. Hickenbottom, supra . 1987Sanchez v. State, supra; Stapleman v. State, supra; Naugher v. State, Wyo., 685 P.2d 37 (1984); Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751 , cert. denied 451 U.S. 989 , 101 S.Ct. 2327 , 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); Goodman v. State, supra; Thomas v. State, supra; Blakely v. State, supra; State v. Hickenbottom, supra. When these conditions are satisfied, due process requires the trial court to give a correct instruction to the jury encompassing the defendant’s theory of the case. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Harris v. United States green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.
green
2 sentences1987Sanchez v. State, supra ; Stapleman v. State, supra ; Naugher v. State, Wyo., 685 P.2d 37 (1984); Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751 , cert. denied 451 U.S. 989 , 101 S.Ct. 2327 , 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); Goodman v. State, supra ; Thomas v. State, supra ; Blakely v. State, supra ; State v. Hickenbottom, supra . 1987Sanchez v. State, supra ; Stapleman v. State, supra ; Naugher v. State, Wyo., 685 P.2d 37 (1984); Jackson v. State, Wyo., 624 P.2d 751 , cert. denied 451 U.S. 989 , 101 S.Ct. 2327 , 68 L.Ed.2d 848 (1981); Goodman v. State, supra ; Thomas v. State, supra ; Blakely v. State, supra ; State v. Hickenbottom, supra . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Eagan v. State green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Davis v. Georgia green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Roldan v. Minter green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Rogge v. Weaver green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Hampton v. State green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| State v. Rideout green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| United States v. William Francis Maloney green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Mares v. State green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Mutter v. United States green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Johnston v. Vukelic green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.