exert his psychological

influence during all other phases of the trial and the bulk of the evidence was presented by the victim’s testi- mony. Daves v. State, 2011 WY 47, 249 P.3d 250, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 50 (Wyo. 2011). Affirmance of conviction. — Where ar- raignment, trial and sentencing had already occurred, the defendant was not entitled to be present when the trial court entered the writ- ten order acknowledging the supreme court’s decision affirming the underlying conviction. Smith v. Wyoming, 985 P.2d 961, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 118 (Wyo. 1999). Absence from conference. — In a defen- dant’s murder case, the defendant’s right to be present was not violated, where (1) there was no indication that the defendant’s absence from a conference on an objection was anything but voluntary, (2) the absence was for a brief period of time, (3) there was no indication that the defendant possessed any special information on the question that his counsel did not, and (4) there was no indication that the defendant’s presence could have altered the judge’s decision on the objection in any way. Belden v. State, 2003 WY 89, 73 P.3d 1041, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 110 (Wyo. 2003), reh’g denied, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 126 (Wyo. Aug. 26, 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1165, 124 S. Ct. 1179, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 898 (U.S. 2004). Remanded for resentencing. — Because the inmate was not present at sentencing as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-202 and W.R.C.P. 43, the court remanded the case for re-sentencing even though the conviction was affirmed. Abeyta v. State, 2003 WY 136, 78 P.3d 664, 2003 Wyo. LEXIS 166 (Wyo. 2003), over- ruled, Patterson v. State, 2025 WY 30, 565 P.3d 692, 2025 Wyo. LEXIS 31 (Wyo. 2025). Amended Sentence. — Defendant’s pres- ence was not required when the amended sen- tence was imposed because the district court’s action was essentially ministerial and could not be considered critical to the outcome of the case. Hawes v. State, 2016 WY 30, 368 P.3d 879, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 32 (Wyo.), reh’g denied, 2016 WY 30, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 44 (Wyo. 2016). Child witness competency hearing. — Where defendant was charged with the sexual abuse of two young boys, when defendant filed a motion for a competency/pretrial taint hear- ing, the district court violated his substantive constitutional rights to due process by denying rights under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 43 to be present at a hearing held to determine the competency of the minor victim who was to be a witness against defendant. Woyak v. State, 2010 WY 27, 226 P.3d 841, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 29 (Wyo. 2010).