Opinion ID: 4117669
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal of Proffered Instructions

Text: [¶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.