In Mazurek v. State, 10 P.3d 531, 535-40 (Wyo. 2000), the Court set forth several nonexhaustive factors to be considered when evaluating whether there was prejudicial plain error at the trial level, including: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor's remarks have a tendency to mislead the jury and prejudice the accused; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) the strength of competent proof to establish guilt, absent, the remarks; (4) whether the comments were deliberately placed before the jury to divert attention to extraneous matters; (5) the presence or absence of a limiting instruction; (6) whether there was a proper purpose for introducing the conviction; (7) whether the conviction was improperly emphasized; (8) whether the - conviction was used as substantive evidence of guilt; (9) whether the error was invited by defense counsel; (10) whether the failure to object could have been the result of tactical decisions; (11) whether, in light of all the evidence, the error was harmless. (Mazurek, 10 P.3d at 539.)