Opinion ID: 4117669
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Self Defense Instructions Offered by Defense

Text: [¶31] We begin with Mr. Tingey’s four proposed self defense instructions. The law in Wyoming is clear that self defense is not available against a peace officer unless the officer uses excessive force. CG v. State, 2011 WY 28, ¶ 15, 248 P.3d 186, 190 (Wyo. 2011); Iseli, ¶ 18, 160 P.3d 1138. Mr. Tingey’s four proffered self defense instructions did not reflect this limitation and were not correct statements of the law as it pertains to the availability of self defense against a peace officer. The district court therefore did not err in refusing the instructions. [¶32] Mr. Tingey next argues that the self defense instructions should have been given because he offered the district court a variation on the instructions that would have corrected them. We do not agree that the variation suggested during the instructions conference would have corrected the self defense instructions. Defense counsel argued as follows for the variation: [Defense Counsel]:    But I think the instructions can be cleaned up to the extent of if you find that the officers engaged in the lawful performance of their duty, then the defendant has no right to self-defense. But in the event you find against, the officers are not engaged in a lawful performance of their duties, then this is the law and it should be given. THE COURT: Are you talking about that as an additional argument in support of your instructions A and B or just D and E or both of them? [Defense Counsel]: I think on all four of them, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So, in essence, you’re asking for a revision on the instruction that if – in essence, first, go through and see if you think the officers were lawfully performing their duty; is that right? [Defense Counsel]: Right. And if they believe it is, that’s the end of it. Self-defense, resisting intruder, assailed defense – THE COURT: Doesn’t apply? [Defense Counsel]: -- danger of intruder would not apply. But in the event there’s a finding by the jury of one of the elements of the crimes of the three counts, that, in fact, 10 they were not in the lawful performance of their duty, I think the law at that point is they do have that right and I think [Mickelson], at least impliedly, implies that.