Court Opinion

ID: 9548765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:08:31.790661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:24.617265
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I am in complete accord with the holding of the majority opinion that there was no error in failing to give the instruction which Phillips claimed set forth his theory of the case. The upshot of that is that his conviction for aggravated assault and battery is affirmed.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority that the conviction for the crime of escape should be set aside. While the discussion of arrest in the instruction that was given may not be a model of clarity, in this instance, the court could have advised the jury that Phillips had been arrested as a matter of law. In my judgment, that feature of the case causes the claim of error to fall within Rule 49(a), W.R.&.P., which states:
“(a) Harmless error. — Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.”
I am not certain that the following statement from the majority opinion accurately describes the function of an appellate court:
“Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, it is necessary for us to determine whether Officer McAuslan had made an arrest at the time of appellant’s flight.” Ante at 392.
If that is our job, though, it is an easy task. The majority notes that Officer McAuslan put a handcuff on Phillips’ arm. The reported cases that have afforded significance to applying handcuffs uniformly identify that as an arrest, sometimes to the advantage of the accused. E.g., United States v. Berryhill, 466 F.2d 621 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1046, 93 S.Ct. 547, 34 L.Ed.2d 498 (1972); Rodgers v. United States, 362 F.2d 358 (8th Cir.1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 993, 87 S.Ct. 608, 17 L.Ed.2d 454 (1966); People v. Terry, 240 Cal.App.2d 681, 50 Cal.Rptr. 120 (1966); Chance v. State, Fla.App., 202 So.2d 825 (1967); People v. Robbins, 54 Ill.App.3d 298, 12 Ill.Dec. 80, 369 N.E.2d 577 (1977); Peterson v. State, 250 Ind. 269, 234 N.E.2d 488 (1968); People v. Calhoun, 73 A.D.2d 972, 424 N.Y.S.2d 247 (1980); Commonwealth v. Roscioli, 240 Pa.Super. 135, 361 A.2d 834 (1976). However the concept of arrest might be defined, the ineluctable conclusion is that Phillips was arrested when he was handcuffed by McAuslan. Consequently, the only instruction which would have been pertinent under these circumstances would have been for the district judge to advise the jury that, if they *394found that he had been handcuffed, he was under arrest.
It well may be that, in the future, our attorneys and judges should give additional attention to the definition of an arrest. Probably, it is best that they look beyond Rodarte v. City of Riverton, Wyo., 552 P.2d 1245 (1976), and consider persuasive authority from other jurisdictions.