Wyoming's rule on evidence law turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Wyoming evidence practice is organized under the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Wyo. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Wyo. R. Evid. 801, 802. The controlling authority is Wyoming Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Wyo. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Wyo. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Wyo. R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
Worked example under Wyoming law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Wyoming. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A lawyer in Wyoming wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Wyo. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Wyo. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Wyo. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Wyo. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Wyo. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Wyoming keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
General standards of admissibility
Wyoming starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Wyo. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Wyoming's small population means evidence issues are often litigated in Cheyenne and Casper district courts with strong reliance on federal authority. Check Wyo. R. Evid. 412 for rape-shield rules.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Wyoming is governed by Wyo. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Wyoming character-evidence opinions
Michael Alexander GLEASON, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…l rule of W.R.E. 404. The entire rule reads as follows: (a) Character evidence generally. — Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: (1) Character of Accused. — Evidence of a pertinent trait of his character offered by an accused, or by the pr…
On character evidence, Michael Alexander GLEASON, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "W.R.E. 404. The entire rule reads as follows: (a) Character evidence generally." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Roy Dale RYAN, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…R.E. 404(a). W.R.E. 404(a), provides in pertinent part: (a) Character evidence generally.Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion[.] Mueller and Kirkpatrick explain the rule's purpose this way: FRE 404(a) states the crucial principle that evidence of…
Roy Dale RYAN, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "R.E. 404(a). W.R.E. 404(a), provides in pertinent part: (a) Character evidence generally.Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion[." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Paul David BROWN, III, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ed. Id. Rule 404 of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence prohibits character evidence for the purpose of showing that the defendant acted in conformity with his “bad character,” but permits the use of such evidence for other purposes. 2 The key inquiry is whether the *1176 act tends to prove something other than propensity to commit the charged crime and, if so, whether relevancy outw…
Paul David BROWN, III, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Id. Rule 404 of the Wyoming Rules of Evidence prohibits character evidence for the purpose of showing that the defendant acted in conformity with his “bad character,” but permits the use of such evidence for other purposes." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Peter Anthony GEZZI, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., dissenting
…ny direct deterrents to admissibility of *981propensity and character evidence in all criminal cases. With the handwriting on the wall, those jurists dedicated to the proposition that guilt or innocence should be determined by the actual evidence of real facts have begun sounding cries of alarm as the current trend to slipshod prosecution by bad acts allegations.7 The great car…
Practitioners open Peter Anthony GEZZI, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., dissenting when Wyoming character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "With the handwriting on the wall, those jurists dedicated to the proposition that guilt or innocence should be determined by the actual evidence of real facts have begun sounding cries of alarm as the current trend to slipshod prosecution by bad acts allegations." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Daniel Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…stify the evidence as proper under one of the exceptions to character evidence articulated in WYO. R. EVID. 404(b), or the general expansion of that rule (see Gezzi v. State, 780 P.2d 972 (Wyo0.1989); Brown v. State, 736 P.2d 1110 (Wyo.1987); and Hatheway v. State, 628 P.2d 741 (Wyo.1981)), and demonstrate that the evidence is relevant for the proposed purpose. The trial court…
Daniel Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "WYO. R. EVID. 404(b), or the general expansion of that rule (see Gezzi v. State, 780 P.2d 972 (Wyo0.1989); Brown v. State, 736 P.2d 1110 (Wyo.1987); and Hatheway v. State, 628 P.2d 741 (Wyo.1981)), and demonstrate that the evidence is relevant for the proposed purpose." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Benny PENA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., dissenting
…had hit someone with whom she had danced. That introductory character evidence set the stage for the stature of proof subsequently introduced, ostensibly to prove identity, but in reality addressing the jury with the antagonistic and pugilistic character of this convicted defendant. I dissent not in undue question about the events of an altercation between Pena and one or more…
On character evidence, Benny PENA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., dissenting speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "That introductory character evidence set the stage for the stature of proof subsequently introduced, ostensibly to prove identity, but in reality addressing the jury with the antagonistic and pugilistic character of this convicted defendant." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jay Allen GRUWELL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ed that Dr. Denison's proposed testimony "may be considered character evidence as allowed under Rule 404(a)(1)," and stated that "f deemed character evidence under 404(a), defense counsel anticipates that the State, if allowed, will then attempt to introduce uncharged misconduct evidence under 404(b), specifically, the allegations of [B.P.]." The substance of that allegation wa…
Wyoming opinions such as Jay Allen GRUWELL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 404(a)(1),' and stated that 'f deemed character evidence under 404(a), defense counsel anticipates that the State, if allowed, will then attempt to introduce uncharged misconduct evidence under 404(b), specifically, the allegations of [B.P.]." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Wyoming are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Wyo. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Wyoming hearsay opinions
Robert F. SCHMUNK, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ting from the erroneous admission of a videotape interview, hearsay and other evidence and testimony, the cumulative effect being to deny him a fair trial. The issues for our determination, as framed by appellant, are: “[1] Should a mistrial have been declared when the prosecutor, in violation of a pretrial ruling, introduced polygraph results connected with defendant’s alleged…
On hearsay, Robert F. SCHMUNK, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "ting from the erroneous admission of a videotape interview, hearsay and other evidence and testimony, the cumulative effect being to deny him a fair trial. The issues for our determination, as framed by appellant, are: “[1] Should a mistrial have been declared when the prosecutor" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Dennis Wayne CROZIER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…and now appeals, claiming improper introduction of certain hearsay and bad-acts evidence, an unsatisfactory jury instruction on intoxication, and impermissible comment on his failure to testify. We find no adequately demonstrated basis for the asserted error, and affirm. Crozier’s four assignments of error are more completely stated as: I. allowing a hearsay statement of the v…
Practitioners open Dennis Wayne CROZIER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We find no adequately demonstrated basis for the asserted error, and affirm. Crozier’s four assignments of error are more completely stated as: I." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Randall D. SCHREIBVOGEL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…the cumulative effect of numerous instances of inadmissible hearsay deny Appellant his right to a fair trial? 4. Did the district court err when it allowed in 404(b) evidence after the Appellant had made the proper demand for notice, and the State had failed to provide any notice? 5. Did the prosecutor commit misconduct when he cross-examined the Appellant as to whether other w…
Wyoming opinions such as Randall D. SCHREIBVOGEL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Did the district court err when it allowed in 404(b) evidence after the Appellant had made the proper demand for notice, and the State had failed to provide any notice?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Arthur M. ARMSTRONG, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…during closing argument. Appellant also argues inadmissible hearsay was used against him at trial and, finally, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue after the dissemination of prejudicial publicity by local media. We conclude that appellant did receive a fair trial consistent with due process and affirm his first degree mu…
On hearsay, Arthur M. ARMSTRONG, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "Appellant also argues inadmissible hearsay was used against him at trial and, finally, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to grant a change of venue after the dissemination of prejudicial publicity by local media." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Christine GOLDADE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Brown, J., dissenting
…timony under Rule 803(4), carved out a new exception to the hearsay rule or made an ad hoc determination because of expediency or policy. If the majority intended to approve the admission of the doctor’s testimony under Rule 803(4), W.R.E., I think such holding is contrary to authority and results in expanding, stretching and distorting the rule. Rule 803(4), W.R.E. is the same…
On hearsay, Christine GOLDADE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Brown, J., dissenting speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "Rule 803(4), carved out a new exception to the hearsay rule or made an ad hoc determination because of expediency or policy. If the majority intended to approve the admission of the doctor’s testimony under Rule 803(4), W.R.E." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
DWAINE M. JENNINGS, Employee-Claimant and Respondent vs. C. M. & W. DRILLING COMPANY Employer-Defendant and Appellant
…ether or not the claim of an employee can be established by hearsay evidence. On or about August 1, 1955, Dwaine M. Jennings, herein called the employee, was employed by the C. M. & W Drilling Company, a Colorado corporation, herein called the employer, upon its rotary oil rig working north of Sheridan, Wyoming. The duties of the employee consisted of watching the motors and eq…
Practitioners open DWAINE M. JENNINGS, Employee-Claimant and Respondent vs. C. M. & W. DRILLING COMPANY Employer-Defendant and Appellant when Wyoming hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "On or about August 1, 1955, Dwaine M. Jennings, herein called the employee, was employed by the C. M. & W Drilling Company, a Colorado corporation, herein called the employer, upon its rotary oil rig working north of Sheridan, Wyoming." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Wyoming treats them under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Wyoming party-admission opinions
Elmer CORDOVA and Dorothy Cordova, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Defendants), v. Antonia GOSAR, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…, one day after the denial order was entered. A request for admission was served by Gosar and answered by Cordova, with the parties pursuing other discovery. The case then came, in July, 1985, from filing date of October, 1984, to a motion for summary judgment by Gosar. It is from the affidavits spawned by that motion that this resolution is now required. Gosar averred ownershi…
Practitioners open Elmer CORDOVA and Dorothy Cordova, Husband and Wife, Appellants (Defendants), v. Antonia GOSAR, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "A request for admission was served by Gosar and answered by Cordova, with the parties pursuing other discovery. The case then came, in July, 1985, from filing date of October, 1984, to a motion for summary judgment by Gosar." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Robert F. SCHMUNK, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ation, conjecture and innuendo resulting from the erroneous admission of a videotape interview, hearsay and other evidence and testimony, the cumulative effect being to deny him a fair trial. The issues for our determination, as framed by appellant, are: “[1] Should a mistrial have been declared when the prosecutor, in violation of a pretrial ruling, introduced polygraph result…
On party admissions, Robert F. SCHMUNK, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "ation, conjecture and innuendo resulting from the erroneous admission of a videotape interview, hearsay and other evidence and testimony, the cumulative effect being to deny him a fair trial. The issues for our determination, as framed by appellant, are: “[1] Should a mistrial ha" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James LANCASTER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…f Monte Hanson. Finding harmless error in the trial court's admission into evidence of a videotaped re-enactment of the crimes, finding either no error or harmless error in the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and finding that defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress evidence, we affirm. ISSUES [¶ 2] Three issues are presented in this…
Practitioners open James LANCASTER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "f Monte Hanson. Finding harmless error in the trial court's admission into evidence of a videotaped re-enactment of the crimes, finding either no error or harmless error in the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and finding that defense counsel was not ineffective in failin" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Arthur M. ARMSTRONG, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…s evidence, deprive appellant of a fair trial? III. Did the admission of relevant, non-hearsay evidence deprive appellant of a fair trial? IV. Was appellant entitled to a change of venue, in light of the negligible effect of pre-trial publicity on the jury? II. FACTS Appellant, Arthur M. Armstrong (Armstrong), admits he fired the gunshot that killed David Anastos (Anastos or vi…
Practitioners open Arthur M. ARMSTRONG, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "III. Did the admission of relevant, non-hearsay evidence deprive appellant of a fair trial?" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Charles M. SEWARD, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…es the following issues on appeal: *808 ISSUE I Whether the admission of expert testimony which impermissibly vouched for the eredi-bility of the child witness was reversible error per set ISSUE II Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding the child witness competent to testify, and by denying the defendant the opportunity to present pretrial testimony indicating…
Practitioners open Charles M. SEWARD, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "es the following issues on appeal: *808 ISSUE I Whether the admission of expert testimony which impermissibly vouched for the eredi-bility of the child witness was reversible error per set ISSUE II Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding the child witness compete" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Business records
The business-records exception under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Wyoming business-records opinions
In the Matter of Parental Rights of GP, JP and SP. LP, Appellant (Respondent), v. NATRONA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
…s retain the trustworthiness inherent in any regularly kept business records. United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95, 99-101 (2nd Cir.1980); Louisell and Mueller, supra, § 448, pp. 683-684. The houseparents and caseworkers recorded in the regular course of their business the statements made by the children. These statements were recorded daily by the employees of the State Chi…
Wyoming opinions such as In the Matter of Parental Rights of GP, JP and SP. LP, Appellant (Respondent), v. NATRONA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95, 99-101 (2nd Cir.1980); Louisell and Mueller, supra, § 448, pp. 683-684. The houseparents and caseworkers recorded in the regular course of their business the statements made by the children." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Randall D. SCHREIBVOGEL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…the incident. He also asserts that the bank statements and business records would either prove or disprove D.C.'s assertion that she would routinely allow smaller tips to stockpile and periodically exchange them at the bank for larger bills. These arguments were not presented to the district court during the hearing. In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion, we…
On business records, Randall D. SCHREIBVOGEL, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "He also asserts that the bank statements and business records would either prove or disprove D.C.'s assertion that she would routinely allow smaller tips to stockpile and periodically exchange them at the bank for larger bills." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Gloria L. DONAHUE, Administratrix, of the Estate of Jerry
…itted into evidence without objection from Caterpillar as a business record. Exhibit 319b was referred to in exhibit 311 and the witness testified that he was familiar with the certificate, could identify it, and had a copy of it. Defense counsel conducted a voir dire examination of the witness and moved that exhibit 319b be excluded because it was irrelevant and lacked foundat…
Wyoming opinions such as CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Gloria L. DONAHUE, Administratrix, of the Estate of Jerry are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Caterpillar as a business record. Exhibit 319b was referred to in exhibit 311 and the witness testified that he was familiar with the certificate, could identify it, and had a copy of it." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Cheryl GUERRA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…gs to be *455seized (notations of “fronted” contraband), as business records of debts owed the record keeper, were of enduring utility to Guerra and likely to remain intact until such time as the debts were satisfied. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 478-79 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2747 n. 9, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976). When denying Guerra’s motion to suppress, the district court fou…
On business records, Cheryl GUERRA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "Guerra and likely to remain intact until such time as the debts were satisfied. Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 478-79 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 2747 n. 9, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Rita Ann HUMPHREY, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ted pursuant to W.R.E. 803(6), 9 the hearsay exception for "business records." Appellant contends it was error to admit this evidence because the evidence does not satisfy the requirements for admissibility under W.R.E. 808(6). Appellant also complains that the records are incomplete and, as such, their admission violated the "completeness" requirement of W.R.E. 106. 10 We note…
Rita Ann HUMPHREY, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming business records because the court put the point in its own words: "W.R.E. 803(6), 9 the hearsay exception for 'business records.' Appellant contends it was error to admit this evidence because the evidence does not satisfy the requirements for admissibility under W.R.E. 808(6)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Rodney ALLOWAY, Appellant (Defendant), v. RT CAPITAL, INC., Appellee (Plaintiff)
…most obvious exception applicable to the statements is the business record exception in W.R.E. 808(6): The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.-A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at o…
Wyoming opinions such as Rodney ALLOWAY, Appellant (Defendant), v. RT CAPITAL, INC., Appellee (Plaintiff) are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "W.R.E. 808(6): The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Wyoming trial practice.
Excited utterance — Wyo. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Wyo. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Wyo. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(a), Wyoming opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Wyoming dying-declaration opinions
GARDNER v. STATE
GARDNER v. STATE, 27 Wyo. 316 (1921)
…cessity of an instruction as to the weight to be given to a dying declaration in a. homicide'case al*335though not requested, the court referred to the rule in that state requiring an instruction upon circumstantial evidence by saying: “It has been held by this court to be error not to instruct the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence, where the ease is dependent entire…
Practitioners open GARDNER v. STATE when Wyoming dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "cessity of an instruction as to the weight to be given to a dying declaration in a. homicide'case al*335though not requested, the court referred to the rule in that state requiring an instruction upon circumstantial evidence by saying: “It has been held by this court to be error" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
HOLLYWOOD v. STATE
HOLLYWOOD v. STATE, 19 Wyo. 493 (1912)
…ed an erroneous conclusion as to the inadmissibility of the dying declaration of the deceased. We are aware that there is some difficulty in fixing the line as to what tonstitutes an opinion and therefore inadmissible, and what constitutes the declaration of an evidentiary fact and admissible as a dying declaration, assuming, of course, that the foundation has been properly lai…
Wyoming opinions such as HOLLYWOOD v. STATE are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "ed an erroneous conclusion as to the inadmissibility of the dying declaration of the deceased. We are aware that there is some difficulty in fixing the line as to what tonstitutes an opinion and therefore inadmissible, and what constitutes the declaration of an evidentiary fact a" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiff and Respondent vs. FRANK KUMP, Defendant and Appellant
…v. State, supra, in speaking in regard to the admission of dying declarations, the question under consideration is also discussed. It is there said: ‘Matters which do not form part of the res gestae are not provable by dying declarations. The rule is confined to a statement of the circumstances connected with the fatal act, and forming a part of the same transaction, it is qui…
The STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiff and Respondent vs. FRANK KUMP, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Wyoming dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "State, supra, in speaking in regard to the admission of dying declarations, the question under consideration is also discussed. It is there said: ‘Matters which do not form part of the res gestae are not provable by dying declarations." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
FOLEY v. STATE
FOLEY v. STATE, 11 Wyo. 464 (1903)
…It is further objected that a paper alleged to contain the dying declarations of the deceased was improperly admitted in evidence. The statements were written down by one of the physicians in attendance, and the paper was signed and sworn to by him and the other physician and one Mrs. O’Connor. It was not read over to the deceased and was not signed by him. Under such circumst…
On dying declaration, FOLEY v. STATE speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "It is further objected that a paper alleged to contain the dying declarations of the deceased was improperly admitted in evidence." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
MELDRUM v. STATE
MELDRUM v. STATE, 23 Wyo. 12 (1915)
…witnesses for the State did not see any blows. Bowen in his dying declaration said he struck the defendant a time or two after they fell. The defendant ’said the shots were fired before they fell and at the time when Bowen had his left arm about his neck and was beating him in the face with his right fist. The defendant testified that he was 47 years old and that Bowen was 30 y…
On dying declaration, MELDRUM v. STATE speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "State did not see any blows. Bowen in his dying declaration said he struck the defendant a time or two after they fell." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Gordon KELLY, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ther James Ratcliffs statements were inadmissible under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule since the prejudicial nature of such statements far outweighed their probative value.” We affirm. On May 29, 1983, the beginning of the Memorial Day weekend, appellant Gordon Kelly, his girlfriend, Arnette Goepfert, and James B. Ratcliff, with tent and fishing gear, left…
On dying declaration, Gordon KELLY, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "James Ratcliffs statements were inadmissible under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule since the prejudicial nature of such statements far outweighed their probative value.” We affirm." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jane DOE Et Al., Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. John BURK, Count — McEWAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting
…intent. Swanson v. State, 222 Ind. 217, 52 N. E. (2d) 616. Dying declaration. — Dying declaration admissible. Montgomery v. State, 80 Ind. 338, 41 Am. Rep. 815. Indictment. — Different means of producing an abortion may be alleged in separate counts in the indictment. Diehl v. State, 157 Ind. 549, 62 N. E. 51. Manslaughter distinguished. — Where death results it was proper to…
Jane DOE Et Al., Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. John BURK, Count — McEWAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting is worth reading on Wyoming dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Swanson v. State, 222 Ind. 217, 52 N. E. (2d) 616. Dying declaration. — Dying declaration admissible. Montgomery v. State, 80 Ind. 338, 41 Am. Rep. 815. Indictment. — Different means of producing an abortion may be alleged in separate counts in the indictment. Diehl v." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Wyoming medical-statement opinions
David Labon BUSH, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…ble under W.R.E. 803(4), as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. [115] Ms. Gordon proceeded to testify that the child "talked about seeing mommy cut in two and put in two holes, and seeing mommy with blood wiped off of her." Ms. Gordon testified that the child told her that "daddy had hurt mommy and gave her an owie" and "would talk about mommy being…
David Labon BUSH, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "W.R.E. 803(4), as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. [115] Ms. Gordon proceeded to testify that the child 'talked about seeing mommy cut in two and put in two holes, and seeing mommy with blood wiped off of her.' Ms." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Christine GOLDADE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…e as a witness: "(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general *725 character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.…
Practitioners open Christine GOLDADE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
David Alfred BLAKE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…as a witness: [[Image here]] (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. — Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment!)] We…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, David Alfred BLAKE, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "Image here]] (4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
John MONTOYA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., concurring
…ve-year-old child was actually for the physician to provide medical diagnosis and treatment, R.S. v. Knighton, 125 N.J. 79, 592 A.2d 1157 (1991), and not artificially arranged to create admissible hearsay evidence during investigative activities. The hearsay exception, W.R.E. 803(4), specifically allows statements relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d…
John MONTOYA, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) — Urbigkit, J., concurring is worth reading on Wyoming medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "R.S. v. Knighton, 125 N.J. 79, 592 A.2d 1157 (1991), and not artificially arranged to create admissible hearsay evidence during investigative activities. The hearsay exception, W.R.E. 803(4), specifically allows statements relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Stephens v." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Randy Lee OWEN, A/K/A Randy Lee Owens, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…atements to be admitted which were made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. We agree with the State. Hearsay is defined as follows: (c) Hearsay. — “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. W.R.E. 801(c). Although hearsay evidence is ordin…
Randy Lee OWEN, A/K/A Randy Lee Owens, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "We agree with the State. Hearsay is defined as follows: (c) Hearsay. — “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. W.R.E. 801(c)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Raymond Estel HORTON, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…803(4), W.R.E., relating to statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. The trial court admitted the testimony, which did not specifically identify the defendant, invoking res gestae as a basis for admission. We hold that the admission of this testimony did not constitute an abuse of the discretion afforded a trial court with respect to rulings on the eviden…
Raymond Estel HORTON, Jr., Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) is worth reading on Wyoming medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "W.R.E., relating to statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. The trial court admitted the testimony, which did not specifically identify the defendant, invoking res gestae as a basis for admission." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Use of depositions at trial
Wyo. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Wyo. R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Wyoming deposition / former-testimony opinions
Sammy Dean MARTINEZ, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…, alleging the commission of error in allowing the use of a deposition in lieu of the appearance of the witness at the trial. We affirm. Two police officers answered a disturbance call at the Lakeway Bar in Green River in the early morning hours. They left their police car in the bar parking lot with the motor running. When they returned to the parking lot a few minutes later,…
Practitioners open Sammy Dean MARTINEZ, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We affirm. Two police officers answered a disturbance call at the Lakeway Bar in Green River in the early morning hours. They left their police car in the bar parking lot with the motor running." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
James BLOOMQUIST, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…itness was unavailable and admitted the witness’ videotaped deposition into evidence? Issue II Was the Appellant denied his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict? Issue III Was Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s deficient performance? Issue IV Did the sentencing proceeding violate Appellant’s right to due process, and Wyoming Rule of C…
On deposition / former testimony, James BLOOMQUIST, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "Issue II Was the Appellant denied his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict?" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Maurice WILLIAMS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant)
…if appropriate expenses are afforded, and, conversely, that depositions can normally be scheduled conveniently without all of the formalities that might be required when an unwilling individual is the subject matter of an anticipated deposition. Litigants should not ignore the economics and efficiency accommodated by discovery rules, including specifically Rule 30(b)(7), W.R.C.…
Practitioners open Maurice WILLIAMS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant) when Wyoming deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Litigants should not ignore the economics and efficiency accommodated by discovery rules, including specifically Rule 30(b)(7), W.R.C." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
James Albert COONES, Appellant (Defendant), v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Liquidator for the First
…ale; and, fourth, the FDIC’s motion to compel a W.R.C.P. 69 deposition which was opposed by Coones.6 The district court granted the FDIC’s motion to distribute the proceeds of the South Dakota cattle sale. Farmers’ intervention motion was granted and the district court directed Farmers to file a complaint asserting its claims to the sale proceeds. The district court ruled that…
Wyoming opinions such as James Albert COONES, Appellant (Defendant), v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Liquidator for the First are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "FDIC’s motion to compel a W.R.C.P. 69 deposition which was opposed by Coones.6 The district court granted the FDIC’s motion to distribute the proceeds of the South Dakota cattle sale." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
In the Matter of the Estate of P. Richard Meyer, Deceased: Miracles Meyer, Personal Representative for the Estate of
…nyone notarize the Will.” Ms. Walker later testified in her deposition that she had no memory of seeing Mr. Meyer sign the Will or whether his signature was on the Will prior to her signature. [¶7] The second witness and notary, Ms. Burkel-Groth, worked as a legal assistant at another law firm in the same building. Ms. Burkel-Groth had no specific memory of witnessing the Will.…
In the Matter of the Estate of P. Richard Meyer, Deceased: Miracles Meyer, Personal Representative for the Estate of is worth reading on Wyoming deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Will.” Ms. Walker later testified in her deposition that she had no memory of seeing Mr. Meyer sign the Will or whether his signature was on the Will prior to her signature. [¶7] The second witness and notary, Ms." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Wyo. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Wyoming ranch, energy, and outdoor-recreation litigation requires authenticated grazing permits, well logs, and GPS tracks under Wyo. R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Wyoming trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Wyoming trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Wyoming authenticity opinions
Abdula AMIN, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…numerous objections regarding foundation, chain of custody, authentication, relevancy, identity, whether the crime was a felony, hearsay, no showing that the public defender was a lawyer, no showing of adult offense, and no raised seal on the documents. The exhibits evidencing prior convictions were received in evidence and appellant was determined to be an habitual criminal. T…
On authentication, Abdula AMIN, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "The exhibits evidencing prior convictions were received in evidence and appellant was determined to be an habitual criminal." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Balynda Kay FOSTER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…with W.R.E. 901, which sets forth the basic requirements of authentication and identification of evi-denee. It reads in pertinent part: (a) General provisions.-The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) Iilustr…
Wyoming opinions such as Balynda Kay FOSTER, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "W.R.E. 901, which sets forth the basic requirements of authentication and identification of evi-denee. It reads in pertinent part: (a) General provisions." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Mark ADAMS, Petitioner, v. the STATE of Wyoming, Respondent
Mark ADAMS, Petitioner, v. the STATE of Wyoming, Respondent, 2005 Wyo. LEXIS 117 (2005)
…to proof of the authenticity of the original. W.R.E. 1003. Authentication is shown by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it is. W.R.E. 901(b)(9). Whether other evidence of the contents of a writing (other than the original) “correctly reflects the contents, the issue is for the trier of fact.” W.R.E. 1008. [¶ 26] T…
Practitioners open Mark ADAMS, Petitioner, v. the STATE of Wyoming, Respondent when Wyoming authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "W.R.E. 1003. Authentication is shown by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it is. W.R.E. 901(b)(9)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Aubrey McCLELLAND, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…exis 2005) provides: "In a trial under this article, a duly authenticated copy of the record of previous convictions and judgments against the defendant of any court of record are prima facie evidence of the previous convictions and may be used in evidence against the defendant." In Abeyta v. State, 2003 WY 136, ¶¶ 26-27, 78 P.3d 664, 671 (Wyo.2003) we provided this summary of…
On authentication, Aubrey McCLELLAND, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) speaks to the Wyoming dispute in this passage: "In a trial under this article, a duly authenticated copy of the record of previous convictions and judgments against the defendant of any court of record are prima facie evidence of the previous convictions and may be used in evidence against the defendant.' In Abeyta v." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
John H. STORY, M.D., Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE of Wyoming; Judith Uphoff, Director of Corrections; Jim
…was a custodian or he had any other capacity from which to authenticate the document. In order for a document to be admitted into evidence, the proponent must establish that the document is authentic. W.R.E. 901. The appellant did not accomplish this. Therefore, the trial court's ruling was correct. [112] The trial court sustained defense objections to various medical records…
Wyoming opinions such as John H. STORY, M.D., Appellant (Plaintiff), v. STATE of Wyoming; Judith Uphoff, Director of Corrections; Jim are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "In order for a document to be admitted into evidence, the proponent must establish that the document is authentic. W.R.E. 901. The appellant did not accomplish this. Therefore, the trial court's ruling was correct." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Jonathon Tyson Blair v. The State of Wyoming
Jonathon Tyson Blair v. The State of Wyoming, 517 P.3d 597 (2022)
…rated information and records, the offering party must both authenticate the record and offer sufficient proof that the record is computer-(or device) generated, rather than based on information inputted by a human source.” 4 Jones on Evidence § 24:3 (7th ed.), Westlaw (database updated Jan. 2022). See also Baker, 117 A.3d at 682–84 (the Court could not affirm admission of call…
Wyoming opinions such as Jonathon Tyson Blair v. The State of Wyoming are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Jones on Evidence § 24:3 (7th ed.), Westlaw (database updated Jan. 2022). See also Baker, 117 A." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
McClintock v. Ayers [Fn]
[McClintock v. Ayers [Fn], 34 Wyo. 476 (1926)](/casedisplay?opinion=150192600000035)
…motion to dismiss. The first ground is that the certificate authenticating the record on appeal as filed in the District Court, and later transmitted to and filed in this court, does not comply with the statute. This is a direct appeal under the provisions for that procedure first enacted in 1917 (L. 1917, Ch. 32), and amended in some respects as to the record on appeal, in 191…
McClintock v. Ayers [Fn] is worth reading on Wyoming authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The first ground is that the certificate authenticating the record on appeal as filed in the District Court, and later transmitted to and filed in this court, does not comply with the statute. This is a direct appeal under the provisions for that procedure first enacted in 1917 (L." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
James F. WESTWOOD, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
…issue asserted in this case is whether there was sufficient authentication of a pair of school scissors to justify their admission into evidence as the instrumentality of the crime in a trial on a charge of aggravated assault and battery. A secondary issue is raised concerning the sufficiency of the evidence of the appellant’s ability, in light of evidence of alcohol or control…
Practitioners open James F. WESTWOOD, Appellant (Defendant), v. the STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff) when Wyoming authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "issue asserted in this case is whether there was sufficient authentication of a pair of school scissors to justify their admission into evidence as the instrumentality of the crime in a trial on a charge of aggravated assault and battery. A secondary issue is raised concerning th" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Wyo. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Wyoming appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Wyoming?
Wyoming applies the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. Wyoming's rules mirror the FRE; Wyo. R. Evid. 401–902 govern district court trials with federal precedent cited persuasively.
How do Wyoming courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Wyo. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Wyoming?
Party-opponent statements under Wyo. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Wyoming?
Wyo. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Wyo. R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Wyoming authenticity practice starts with Wyo. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Wyo. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.