district court’s duty to consider the crime and

its circumstances, and disregarded the fact that the officers’ testimony would have come before the district court at sentencing even if defen- dant had pled guilty to the aggravated assault charge. Hopson v. State, 2006 WY 32, 130 P.3d 494, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 35 (Wyo. 2006). In a criminal trial for burglary, where defen- dant did not object at trial to the state’s rebut- tal closing argument, Wyo. R. App. P. 9.05 permitted defendant to challenge statements on appeal that allegedly diluted the state’s burden of proof, argued facts not in evidence, and presented a community outrage argument, and the Supreme Court of Wyoming found no showing of error or prejudice; the essence of the prosecutor’s argument was that there was suf- ficient evidence for the jury to convict defen- dant, the argument was supported by the re- cord, and the community outrage argument did not approach the level of “join the war on crime/send a message to criminals” condemned in other cases. Harris v. State, 2008 WY 23, 177 P.3d 1166, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 24 (Wyo. 2008). Where prosecutor’s conduct adversely affected defendant’s substantial right to fair trial. — Where the prosecutor, in his rebuttal, in essence repeatedly told the jury that “if you don’t convict these people you are calling me a liar,” the continuous disregard of the rules by the prosecutor is so great as to adversely affect the defendant’s substantial right to a fair trial. Browder v. State, 639 P.2d 889, 1982 Wyo. LEXIS 289 (Wyo. 1982). It was not plain error not to let jury retire for the evening after a full day of trial, and to allow it to deliberate until around mid- night. Munden v. State, 698 P.2d 621, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 473 (Wyo. 1985). Plaintiff waives error in verdict im- proper on its face by failing to object. — Although there was no inherent error in telling the jury what the plaintiff ’s burden of proof was and that it must decide whether the plain- tiff ’s injuries were caused by the alleged as- sault and battery, and then instructing the jury to assess damages without regard to its find- ings concerning the fact of the assault and whether or not it proximately caused any inju- ries, it was impossible to reconcile the jury’s findings that there was an assault and battery and that the assault was not a “proximate cause of the injuries” with the testimony of the treating doctors who testified without conflict that the plaintiff in fact received injuries re- sulting in the necessity to prescribe and pur- chase medication. Therefore, the verdict of the jury was inconsistent and improper on its face.