Tenth Circuit· 8/26/2016

United States v. Wolfname

Citations

835 F.3d 1214
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15778
2016 WL 4492465

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that the failure to instruct on an essential element of the crime satisfied the fourth element of the plain- error test because the government’s evidence on the omitted element of the crime was neither overwhelming nor uncontroverted
noting that the defendant “requested (and received) jury instructions construing a 42 statute that contradict the construction he now prefers on appeal”
explaining that “[a]n error is plain if it is clear or obvious under current, well-settled law” (internal quotation marks omitted)
explaining that when litigant merely fails to object to jury instruction below, we will nevertheless review that instruction on appeal, albeit under our rigorous plain- error test
applying the plain-error standard where the defendant “didn’t raise []his argument below”
“The record further reflects that [the defendant] meaningfully participated in crafting the jury instruction actually given at trial, which reflected the language [the defendant] sought.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tymkovich, Hartz, Moritz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.