Opinion ID: 2598537
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Mitigating Circumstance of Duress

Text: [ś 146] In his seventh issue, Olsen contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that he was under extreme duress as permitted in § 6-2-102(j)(v) which states, [t]he defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person. Olsen contends that Dr. Gummow testified on both direct and cross-examination that it was her opinion that Olsen was acting under duress at the time of the crimes. When an instruction has been offered presenting the defendant's theory of the case, or defense, that instruction or a similar instruction must be presented to the jury if it is supported by competent evidence. Stapleman [ v. State ], 680 P.2d [73] at 75 [ (Wyo.1984) ] (citing Goodman v. State, 573 P.2d 400, 408 (Wyo.1977); Blakely v. State, 474 P.2d 127 (Wyo.1970)). We look to the record to determine if competent evidence presented at trial required an instruction presenting the defendant's theory. Stapleman, 680 P.2d at 75. In reviewing the record for competent evidence, we view the evidence in a light as favorable to the accused as is justifiable. Id.; Eatherton v. State, 761 P.2d 91, 95 (Wyo.1988). The instruction must be given if a jury could reasonably conclude the evidence supports the defendant's position, even if the court deems the evidence to be weak or unworthy of belief. Stagner v. State, 842 P.2d 520, 523 (Wyo.1992). Brett, 961 P.2d at 389. Because the law requires the trial court to accurately instruct the jury on the applicable law that is supported by evidence, Olsen asserts the failure to instruct his jury on this statutory mitigating circumstance was reversible error. Dr. Gummow's testimony provided sufficient evidence to permit an instruction on this mitigating circumstance, and it was error to refuse the instruction.