Opinion ID: 2561941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 12] The parties disagree on the appropriate standard of review. Mr. Britton did not object to the introduction of Exhibit 10 at trial. On that basis, the State asserts that the plain error standard of review should apply, citing Dettloff v. State, 2007 WY 29, ¶ 34, 152 P.3d 376, 385 (Wyo.2007), among other cases. [¶ 13] Mr. Britton points out that, in previous cases, we have established that a defendant's pretrial demand for notice of intent to introduce evidence under W.R.E. 404(b) may serve as an objection to the introduction of such evidence. Howard v. State, 2002 WY 40, ¶ 23, 42 P.3d 483, 491 (Wyo.2002). Although Mr. Britton did not file a demand, the district court issued a scheduling order that required the State to provide notice of any proposed W.R.E. 404(b) evidence. Mr. Britton contends that the court's order served the same purpose as a defendant's request for notice, and so also preserved his objection to the admission of evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). On that basis, Mr. Britton urges us to review for abuse of discretion, citing Johnson v. State, 936 P.2d 458, 462 (Wyo.1997), among other cases. [¶ 14] It is unnecessary for us to choose between the two standards of review, because the result is the same under either standard. The district court's letter, written soon after trial, stated that the admission of Exhibit 10 violated the order excluding such evidence. Without deciding this issue, we accept the district court's conclusion that Exhibit 10 was admitted into evidence in error. We will consider that error sufficient, for purposes of this case, to establish an abuse of discretion under the standard of review advocated by Mr. Britton. See Johnson, 936 P.2d at 462. We will also treat that error as sufficient, in this case, to establish an error clearly demonstrated in the record, and the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, satisfying the first two requirements of the plain error standard advocated by the State. See Guy v. State, 2008 WY 56, ¶ 9, 184 P.3d 687, 692 (Wyo.2008). [¶ 15] Under both standards of review, the next step is to consider whether the error was prejudicial or harmless. The test is the same under either standard: we will reverse if there is a reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been more favorable to the Appellant if the error had not been made. [3] The dispositive question in this case, then, is whether the admission into evidence of Exhibit 10, with its references to bruising, resulted in material prejudice to Mr. Britton.