Opinion ID: 2268496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 8] Where an objection is posed, we review a trial court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. A trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence is entitled to considerable deference, and will not be reversed on appeal unless the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion. [A]s long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling, that ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. Sanchez v. State, 2006 WY 116, ¶ 20, 142 P.3d 1134, 1140 (Wyo. 2006). Leyva v. State, 2007 WY 136, ¶ 17, 165 P.3d 446, 452 (Wyo. 2007). If we conclude the trial court erred in admitting evidence, we must then consider whether the error was prejudicial or harmless. W.R.A.P. 9.04. [¶ 9] When no objection is lodged in the trial court to the evidence challenged on appeal, we apply our plain error standard of review. Plain error will not be found unless: (1) the record clearly shows the alleged error; (2) the party claiming the error demonstrates a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) the party proves the violation adversely affected a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Miller v. State, 2006 WY 17, ¶ 15, 127 P.3d 793, 797-98 (Wyo. 2006). Whether an error is reviewed on the basis of plain error or on the basis of harmless error, our primary focus is whether the appellant's case was so seriously prejudiced by the error that he was denied a fair trial. Butcher v. State, 2005 WY 146, ¶ 38, 123 P.3d 543, 554 (Wyo. 2005); Lopez v. State, 2004 WY 103, ¶ 56, 98 P.3d 143, 157 (Wyo. 2004). This involves a determination as to whether, based on the entire record, a reasonable possibility exists that, in the absence of the error, the verdict might have been more favorable to the accused. Lopez, ¶ 56, 98 P.3d at 157. The burden of establishing prejudicial error rests upon the appellant. Butcher, ¶ 39, 123 P.3d at 554.