Opinion ID: 4117669
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Give Theory of Defense Instructions

Text: [¶21] The jury was given elements instructions on both felony interference with a peace officer and the lesser included offense of misdemeanor interference with a peace officer. Misdemeanor and felony interference with a peace officer are statutorily defined as follows: (a) A person commits a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both, if he knowingly obstructs, impedes or interferes with or resists arrest by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties. (b) A person who intentionally and knowingly causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204 (LexisNexis 2015) (emphasis added). [¶22] Mr. Tingey’s theory of defense was that the officers who entered his home were not engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. More particularly, Mr. Tingey asserted: 1) the officers had no legal basis to enter his home and were therefore not 6 engaged in the lawful performance of their duties when Mr. Tingey became physically violent, which is a defense to the charge of interference; and 2) because the officers were not lawfully in the home, he had a right to use self defense against them. [¶23] In furtherance of his defense, Mr. Tingey offered five jury instructions, four on self defense and one on search and seizure. The four self defense instructions, which were proposed instructions A, B, D, and E, read: INSTRUCTION NO. A It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself from attack if he has reasonable grounds for believing and does believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him. In doing so he may use all force which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent. INSTRUCTION NO. B A person who has reasonable grounds to believe, and actually does believe that he is threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense, need not retreat or consider whether he can safely retreat, so long as he does not use deadly force. He is entitled to stand his ground and use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to secure himself from the attack. This law applies even though the assailed person might have been able to gain safety by flight or by withdrawal from the scene. INSTRUCTION NO. D A person may defend his home or habitation against anyone who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent or riotous manner, to enter that home or habitation and who appears to intend violence to any person in that home or habitation. The amount of force which the person may use in resisting such trespass is limited by what would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, necessary to resist the violent or unlawful entry. A person is not bound to retreat even though a retreat might safely be made. A person may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence if the circumstances 7 apparent to him are such as would excite similar fears and a similar belief in a reasonable person. INSTRUCTION NO. E A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. [¶24] Mr. Tingey’s proposed instruction on search and seizure law, which was proposed instruction C, quoted Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. It read: INSTRUCTION NO. C You are instructed that the Wyoming Constitution provides “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.” [¶25] The district court refused the five instructions. The court refused the self defense instructions on the ground that self defense is available against a police officer only upon a showing that the officer used excessive force. The court refused Instruction No. C, the quote from the Wyoming Constitution, on the ground that the instruction would not be helpful to the jury and would cause confusion. [¶26] Mr. Tingey contends that the district court erred in denying his proposed jury instructions A, B, D, and E, and his proposed jury instruction C. He further contends that the court committed plain error in failing to on its own provide the jury with proper theory of defense instructions.
[¶27] The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo. James v. State, 2015 WY 83, ¶ 17, 357 P.3d 101, 105 (Wyo. 2015) (citing Nelson v. State, 2010 WY 159, ¶ 13, 245 P.3d 282, 285 (Wyo. 2010)). The failure to give an instruction that is not offered by a defendant is reviewed for plain error. Vaught v. State, 2016 WY 7, ¶ 13, 366 P.3d 512, 515 (Wyo. 2016); Schaeffer v. State, 2012 WY 9, ¶ 26, 268 P.3d 1045, 1056 (Wyo. 2012). To prevail on his claim of plain error, Mr. Tingey 8 must establish by reference to the record that a clear and obvious violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law adversely affected a substantial right to such a degree that he was materially prejudiced. To show material prejudice, [Mr. Tingey] must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the jury verdict would have been more favorable in the absence of the error. Kovach v. State, 2013 WY 46, ¶ 79, 299 P.3d 97, 122 (Wyo.2013). To establish that failure to give the instruction violated a clear rule of law, he must provide authority showing that, at the time of his trial, Wyoming law had a clear-cut requirement that juries be given the instruction he now champions. Causey v. State, 2009 WY 111, ¶¶ 20–21, 215 P.3d 287, 293–94 (Wyo.2009). Vaught, ¶ 14, 366 P.3d at 516 (footnote omitted).
[¶28] We will first address Mr. Tingey’s claim that the district court erred in refusing his proffered theory of defense instructions. We will then address his plain error claim.
[¶29] As reflected in our standard of review, a defendant has a due process right to a jury instruction that details the defendant’s theory of the case. James, ¶ 18, 357 P.3d at 105 (quoting Nelson v. State, 2010 WY 159, ¶ 14, 245 P.3d 282 at 285-86 (Wyo. 2010)). We have also said, however, that: “[n]ot every instruction must be given simply because there is a claim that it incorporates a theory of the case.” Wilkening v. State, 922 P.2d 1381, 1383 (Wyo.1996). A trial court may properly refuse to give a proposed instruction if it is erroneous, confusing, argumentative, or if the instruction unduly emphasizes one aspect of the case, the law, or the defendant’s version of the events. Madrid v. State, 910 P.2d 1340, 1346 (Wyo.1996); Jansen v. State, 892 P.2d 1131, 1140 (Wyo.1995); Virgilio v. State, 834 P.2d 1125, 1128 (Wyo.1992). Iseli v. State, 2007 WY 102, ¶ 10, 160 P.3d 1133, 1136 (Wyo. 2007) (quoting Farmer v. State, 2005 WY 162, ¶ 23, 124 P.3d 699, 707 (Wyo. 2005)). 9 [¶30] This is precisely the problem with the theory of defense instructions offered by Mr. Tingey. They were either erroneous statements of law or would do no more than create confusion.
[¶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.