Court Opinion

ID: 9553104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:22:12.373849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:42.101128
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I do not quarrel with the result which is reached in the majority opinion in this instance. It does seem to me, however, that we hold nothing more than:
1. There was no error with respect to the instructions given the jury.
2. The verdict form which was submitted to the jury was not erroneous.
3. If the verdict was inconsistent with the instructions of the court the appellant is charged with the duty of raising that question at the trial level before the jury’s discharge pursuant to DeWitty v. Decker, Wyo., 383 P.2d 734 (1963).
Consequently, since no error is found with respect to the instructions or the jury verdict form, plain error is not a proposition which the appellant can rely upon. Furthermore, the proposition of plain error is antithetical to the waiver concept found in DeWitty v. Decker, supra, and the two principles cannot be invoked in the same case.