Opinion ID: 2633362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Admission of Prior Inconsistent Statements was Plain Error

Text: [¶ 29] In our statement of the facts, we set out the testimony of Schmidt's son and niece. In its rebuttal case, the State called a police officer to testify that the statements those individuals gave at or near the time of the crime were considerably different and much more incriminating to Schmidt (and both of the witnesses were aggressively cross-examined in this regard). Schmidt concedes that no objections were made to the elicitation of the prior inconsistent statements. Therefore, we must apply the plain error doctrine, which is set out above. In this instance, the record clearly reflects the incident alleged to be error. However, Schmidt fails to demonstrate that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated in a clear and obvious, not merely arguable, way or that he was denied a substantial right resulting in material prejudice to him. Metzger, 4 P.3d at 906. Indeed, we have previously found that such a circumstance fails to qualify as plain error under very similar circumstances. Monn v. State, 811 P.2d 1004, 1006-7 (Wyo.1991). The testimony of Schmidt's son lacked credibility, and that was readily evident at the end of the State's cross-examination of him. The niece virtually admitted under cross-examination that her direct testimony was what she was told by her family to say, rather than the truth. The admission of the prior inconsistent statements was likely not error, but it is without a doubt not plain error.