Opinion ID: 1349900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: In his sole assigned error to this court, Yeutter asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to determine that the district court had a duty to instruct the jury on the amount of force that a police officer may employ in making an arrest and the amount of force that a citizen may employ to defend himself against excessive force. Before addressing this assertion, we must first note that Yeutter's arrest for obstructing a police officer was an illegal arrest. A person commits the offense of obstructing a peace officer, when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle, he intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer or judge acting under color of his official authority. § 28-906. The record does not reflect that at the time that Besmer attempted to arrest Yeutter, Yeutter used or threatened to use violence or force or physically interfered with the officer. The record does reflect that Yeutter refused to answer routine questions necessary for the officer to complete a citation. However, the mere verbal refusal to provide information to an officer does not constitute an obstacle to the enforcement of the penal laws as contemplated by § 28-906. There must be some sort of physical act in order for a violation of this statute to occur. Cf. In re Interest of Richter, 226 Neb. 874, 415 N.W.2d 476 (1987) (running away from police constituted physical obstacle within meaning of § 28-906). However, it is well established that [t]he use of such force is not justifiable ... to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-1409(2) (Reissue 1995). Because it is uncontroverted that Yeutter knew that Besmer was a police officer, Yeutter was not justified in using force on the basis that he was being arrested unlawfully. Regardless, Yeutter's assigned error does not focus on the unlawfulness of his arrest. Instead, Yeutter asserts that he was entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. Whether requested to do so or not, a trial court has the duty to instruct the jury on issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence. Because of this duty, the trial court, on its own motion, must correctly instruct on the law. State v. Adams, 251 Neb. 461, 558 N.W.2d 298 (1997). Thus, in order to determine the merit of Yeutter's assigned error, we must first determine the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to raise a duty on the part of the trial court to instruct the jury on self-defense in prosecutions for assaulting an officer, obstructing a peace officer, or resisting arrest. This issue is one of first impression. In cases outside the context of prosecutions for assaulting an officer, obstructing a peace officer, or resisting arrest, a trial court must instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense when there is any evidence adduced which raises a legally cognizable claim of self-defense. See State v. Kinser, 252 Neb. 600, 567 N.W.2d 287 (1997). To successfully assert the claim of self-defense, one must have a both reasonable and good faith belief in the necessity of using force. Id.; State v. White, 249 Neb. 381, 543 N.W.2d 725 (1996). In addition, the force used in defense must be immediately necessary and must be justified under the circumstances. State v. Kinser, supra ; State v. Graham, 234 Neb. 275, 450 N.W.2d 673 (1990). We have also stated that a police officer, in making an arrest, must use only reasonable force, which is that amount of force which an ordinary, prudent, and intelligent person with the knowledge and in the situation of the arresting police officer would have deemed necessary under the circumstances. State v. Thompson, 244 Neb. 189, 505 N.W.2d 673 (1993); Wagner v. City of Omaha, 236 Neb. 843, 464 N.W.2d 175 (1991). Thus, in prosecutions for assaulting an officer, obstructing a peace officer, or resisting arrest, we hold that a trial court must instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense when there is any evidence adduced which raises a legally cognizable claim that the police officer used unreasonable force in making the arrest. In the instant case, the following facts are uncontroverted: Besmer told Yeutter that he would arrest Yeutter for obstructing a police officer if Yeutter did not provide the requested identification. Yeutter held out his arms and stated, [G]o ahead and take me. Besmer then told Yeutter to place his hands on a nearby car, which Yeutter refused to do. Besmer again told Yeutter to place his hands on the vehicle because he was under arrest. Again, Yeutter did not comply. Eventually, Besmer grabbed Yeutter's arm and forced Yeutter down on the gravel driveway so that he could place handcuffs on him. While the two men were on the ground, Yeutter grabbed one end of Besmer's handcuffs and would not let go after being repeatedly instructed to do so by Besmer. Yeutter testified, I didn't want him to cuff me. I thought he was out of line. At one point, Yeutter stated that if Besmer would get off him, he would let Besmer handcuff him. Besmer attempted to get Yeutter's arms out from underneath Yeutter by applying a pressure point. However, when Besmer put his left hand over Yeutter's face so that he could apply the pressure point, Yeutter bit one of Besmer's fingers. Thus, the uncontroverted evidence shows that Besmer did not take Yeutter to the ground until after Yeutter twice refused to put his hands on the vehicle as ordered by the officer. Besmer did not attempt to apply a pressure point to Yeutter until after Yeutter grabbed the officer's handcuffs and otherwise resisted being handcuffed. The fact that Yeutter initially held out his hands and said [G]o ahead and take me and later stated to Besmer that if Besmer would get off him, he would let Besmer handcuff him is of no significance. An officer need not comply with a suspect's requests on how and when the officer should conduct the arrest.