Opinion ID: 2571525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the district court err in refusing to give an adequate theory-of-defense instruction?

Text: [¶ 17] In addition to proposed instruction A discussed above, the appellant also offered proposed instruction B, which reads as follows: DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. B It is lawful for a person 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. [¶ 18] The appellant contends that by refusing to give his proposed instructions A and B, the district court effectively denied him a theory-of-the-case instruction. His premise is that, not knowing Davis was a peace officer, he had the right to defend himself. We agree with the district court even though, at first blush, a self-defense instruction might appear logical under the circumstances of this case. In refusing to give these instructions, however, the district court correctly discerned that a self-defense instruction was improper under any version of the facts. Consider the possibilities: If the appellant knew Davis was a peace officer, he had no right to defend himself against arrest, so no self-defense instruction was warranted. If the appellant did not know Davis was a peace officer, he cannot be guilty of the charged crime, so no self-defense instruction was warranted. If Davis had used excessive force in making the arrest, the appellant would have been entitled to defend himself, but there was no evidence suggesting the excessive use of force, so no self-defense instruction was warranted. See Ortega v. State, 966 P.2d 961, 966 (Wyo.1998).