Opinion ID: 2350302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The District Court's Refusal of Appellant's Proffered Lesser-Included Offense Instruction

Text: [¶ 24] We have adopted the statutory elements test as an uncomplicated means for ascertaining whether the jury should be instructed on a lesser-included offense: [4] Based upon this comprehensive review of the cases in our state, relevant federal precedent, and the mandates of the constitutions of the United States and Wyoming, as well as the persuasive impact of the position of the Supreme Court of the United States, we are convinced that the statutory elements test is the one to invoke to determine whether a lesser included offense instruction under Wyoming Rule 31(c) is appropriate. Under this test, one offense is not `necessarily included' in another unless the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense. Where the lesser offense requires an element not required for the greater offense, no instruction is to be given under [Wyoming Rule 31(c) ]. Schmuck II [ Schmuck v. United States ], 489 U.S. [705] at 716, 109 S.Ct. [1443] at 1450[, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989)]. Keffer, 860 P.2d at 1133-34; see Dean, ¶¶ 14-19, 77 P.3d at 697-99. Moreover, Suffice it to say that, under any standard or test, a lesser-included offense instruction is not to be given in the absence of some minimal evidentiary support and that, after determining that the statutory elements test has been met, the trial court is obligated also to determine whether a lesser-included offense instruction is supported by the evidence. Id., ¶ 19, 77 P.3d at 699. [¶ 25] At trial, Appellant faced a felony charge of Attempt to Commit Kidnapping by removal. The pertinent statutory elements of kidnapping by removal under which Appellant was prosecuted are: (a) A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from his place of residence or business or from the vicinity where he was at the time of the removal,. . . with the intent to: [  ] (iii) Inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim. . . . (b) A removal or confinement is unlawful if it is accomplished: (i) By force, threat or deception[.] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-201(a)(iii) and (b)(i) (LexisNexis 2011). [¶ 26] The court below ultimately gave Instruction No. 30 at the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial: The elements of the crime of Kidnapping are: 1. On or about the 19th day of June, 2010 2. In Sweetwater County, Wyoming 3. The Defendant, Lawrence Floyd Silva 4. Unlawfully removed [the victim] 5. From the vicinity where [the victim] was at the time of removal 6. With the intent to inflict bodily injury on or terrorize [the victim]. [¶ 27] Appellant asked the district court to instruct on Attempted False Imprisonment and False Imprisonment, in the alternative, as lesser-included misdemeanor offenses to Attempt to Commit Kidnapping and Kidnapping, respectively. [5] Key portions of Appellant's proposed lesser-included false imprisonment instruction, designated as Defendant's Instruction D, are as follows: The elements of the crime of False Imprisonment are: 1. On or about the 19th day of June, 2010 2. In Sweetwater County, Wyoming 3. The Defendant, Lawrence Floyd Silva 4. Knowingly and unlawfully 5. Restrained [the victim] and 6. That restraint substantially interfered with the liberty of [the victim]. [¶ 28] Although Rule 31(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the jury's conviction of an accused for a lesser offense, during the instruction conference, the district court declined Appellant's request to instruct the jury on Attempted False Imprisonment as a lesser offense to the Attempt to Commit Kidnapping crime: [6] [Court]: Okay. [Appellant's Counsel], do you have any objections to the Instructions 6 through 34 and the verdict form? [Appellant's Counsel]: Yes, Judge, I do. I object to the fact that the lesser-included offense of False Imprisonment was removed from the packet. [7] [Court]: Okay. Iokay. II just want to know if you had objections to the ones that are being presented. I was going to [Appellant's Counsel]: Oh, I'm sorry. [Court]: I was going to give you objections for any other additional ones. [Appellant's Counsel]: I do not have any objection to what we have to put before the jury. I object to the fact that the instruction we are not putting before the jury as a result of a conference this morning is an instruction on the lesser-included offense of False Imprisonment. [Court]: [Prosecutor], you were the one that requested thethere are actually four instructions that [Appellant's Counsel] is referring to, and one is an instruction telling the jury that if they found the Defendant not guilty of Attempted Kidnapping, they could find him guilty of a lesser offense of Attempted False Imprisonment and another one that said that the offense of Kidnapping also includes the lesser offense of False Imprisonment, gave the elements of the crime of Attempted [sic] to Commit False Imprisonment and the elements of the crime of False Imprisonment. There were four instructions that refer to the issue that [Appellant's Counsel]'s talking about. The Court has removed those four, but do you want to give your reasons for asking for them to be removed? [Prosecutor]: Sure, your Honor. Up until this morning, the State had agreed that False Imprisonment would be appropriate. This morning as I was driving over to Green River, I started thinking about it, and I started thinking that Kidnapping can be charged in several different ways, one of them is by removing an individual, another is by restraining an individual, and when I thought about False Imprisonment, I knew that the language in False Imprisonment talks about restraining. The State is not alleging that the Defendant was trying to restrain the victim in this case. The State is alleging that the Defendant was trying to remove the victim in this case. Therefore, the language of the two does not appear to be a lesser included, and the language of the greater offense has to match exactly the language of the lesser offense, and that's why I asked that they be removed. [Court]: And the Court has agreed with you. Certainly, False Imprisonment could be a lesser offense of Kidnapping, but not as the State has charged, and the jury would actually have to be finding a different element than an element that was charged, and therefore, those four instructions will not be given. I am calling those Defendant's Exhibitsor Instructions A, B, C and D. They will be part of the permanent file and areare identified as not being given by the Court, but theyit is on the Record, but also, those particular instructions are included in the file should there be an appeal on that issue. [Appellant's Counsel]: Thank you, Judge. [¶ 29] Applying the statutory elements test, the district court unequivocally declared that Attempted False Imprisonment is not a lesser-included offense to Attempt to Commit Kidnapping where, as was so specifically charged in the case, Appellant's purported criminal conduct involved only an attempted removal of the victim with the intent to inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize her. Thus, [w]here the lesser offense requires an element not required for the greater offense, no instruction is to be given under Wyoming Rule 31(c). Keffer, 860 P.2d at 1134 (citing Schmuck II, 489 U.S. at 716, 109 S.Ct. at 1450, 103 L.Ed.2d 734). As a matter of law, the district court correctly applied the statutory elements test in properly refusing to give the proposed lesser offense instruction.