did not properly preserve issue for appeal. Cox

v. State, 964 P.2d 1235, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 127 (Wyo. 1998). The Supreme Court held that a defendant’s failure to assert an objection or defense through a pretrial motion required by Wyo. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) is a bar to appellate review of the claim unless good cause is shown for the failure to make the required filing; thus, because defen- dant, who was convicted of delivery of a con- trolled substance, did not file a pretrial motion to suppress the identification evidence against him, as required by rule 12(b)(3), he failed to preserve his due process claim for appellate review. Rodriguez v. State, 2019 WY 25, 435 P.3d 399, 2019 Wyo. LEXIS 25 (Wyo. 2019). Defense of double jeopardy waived if not raised before trial court. — A claimed defense of double jeopardy, if it was to be interposed, should have been raised by motion pursuant to this rule. Since it was not raised before the trial court, it was waived. Hutchins v. State, 483 P.2d 519, 1971 Wyo. LEXIS 213 (Wyo. 1971); Peterson v. State, 586 P.2d 144, 1978 Wyo. LEXIS 238 (Wyo. 1978), overruled, Crozier v. State, 723 P.2d 42, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 595 (Wyo. 1986). Motions calling for pretrial determina- tion of evidence admissibility. — A motion in limine, a motion to suppress or a motion to exclude call for a pretrial determination that certain potential evidentiary matters or items are inadmissible at the trial. The modification or rescission of such orders is permitted and is subject to the same considerations and results as those made before the trial. Hayes v. State, 599 P.2d 558, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 443 (Wyo. 1979). Motion to suppress. — Where the police and fire departments responded to a report of a vehicle on fire outside of a mobile home owned by defendant, where no one was present at the mobile home but defendant’s girlfriend arrived and admitted to the police that she had contra- band inside of the mobile home, where the girlfriend consented to allow the police to enter to retrieve the small amount of drugs she admitted to possessing, where defendant ar- rived upon the scene and declined to allow the police to search further, where an officer indi- cated that hey would apply for a search war- rant and that probable cause existed for the warrant based upon the amount of drugs al- ready recovered, and where defendant thereaf- ter consented to a search, which uncovered a significant amount of marijuana, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s suppression motion because defendant’s consent to the search was voluntarily given and was not co- erced. Johnson v. State, 2010 WY 47, 228 P.3d 1306, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 49 (Wyo. 2010).