Opinion ID: 6536624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense Theory Instruction

Text: [¶18] The failure to give an offered instruction on the law related to a theory of defense is a due process issue, which this Court reviews de novo.  Tingey v. State , 2017 WY 5 , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d 1170 , 1178 (Wyo. 2017) (citing James v. State , 2015 WY 83 , ¶ 17, 357 P.3d 101 , 105 (Wyo. 2015) ). However, the failure to give an instruction that is not offered by a defendant is reviewed for plain error. Id. (citing Vaught v. State , 2016 WY 7 , ¶ 13, 366 P.3d 512 , 515 (Wyo. 2016) ; Schaeffer v. State , 2012 WY 9 , ¶ 26, 268 P.3d 1045 , 1056 (Wyo. 2012) ). [¶19] Our review is for plain error because Mr. Hopkins did not submit a theory of defense instruction outlining his position. 4 Tingey , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 . In order to prevail under the plain error standard, Mr. Hopkins must show the record reflects that a clear and obvious violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law adversely affected a substantial right to such a degree that he was materially prejudiced. Id. (citing Vaught , ¶ 14, 366 P.3d at 516 (footnote omitted)). To establish that failure to give the instruction violated a clear rule of law, he must provide authority showing that ... Wyoming law had a clear-cut requirement that juries be given the instruction he now champions. Tingey , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 1178 (quoting Vaught , ¶ 14, 366 P.3d at 516 (footnote omitted)). Material prejudice requires Mr. Hopkins to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred. Larkins v. State , 2018 WY 122 , ¶ 94, 429 P.3d 28 , 50 (Wyo. 2018). [¶20] Mr. Hopkins does not identify a clear and unequivocal rule of law the district court violated and we have found none. As discussed above, Mr. Hopkins' defense theory, that the State was required to prove he purposefully hit the victim's vehicle, is legally flawed and, therefore, was properly excluded from presentation to the jury. See, e.g. , Bush v. State , 2008 WY 108 , ¶ 59, 193 P.3d 203 , 218 (Wyo. 2008) (citation omitted) (explaining that the United States Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive, only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice or confusion of the issues); Marfil v. State , 2016 WY 12 , ¶ 25, 366 P.3d 969 , 975 (Wyo. 2016) (citation omitted) (approving the refusal of a proposed jury instruction that misstates the law). [¶21] Moreover, it is not a theory of defense to request that the jury be instructed on crimes the State has not charged. Harnetty v. State , 2019 WY 21 , ¶ 29, 435 P.3d 368 , 374 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Bouwkamp v. State , 833 P.2d 486 , 490 (Wyo. 1992) (Suggestion of an alternative charge is not a defense to the crime being prosecuted.)). Mr. Hopkins had no due process right to have the district court instruct the jury on a crime under which he was not charged. See Harnetty , ¶ 30, 435 P.3d at 375 . He was not charged with aggravated assault and battery under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502 (a)(i) or driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233 (h). Consequently, Mr. Hopkins has failed to demonstrate any plain error impacting his due process rights.