Court Opinion

ID: 9554104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:41:41.272234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:00.415525
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
The instruction given by the trial court correctly set out the elements necessary to effect an arrest. We held these elements to be a correct statement of law not only in Phillips v. State, 760 P.2d 388, 392 (Wyo.1988) and earlier cases, e.g. Rodarte v. City of Riverton, 552 P.2d 1245, 1250 (Wyo.1976), but in a subsequent decision as well. Simonds v. State, 762 P.2d 1189, 1192 (Wyo.1988). The instruction offered by the appellant was covered by the instruction given. The part of the refused instruction which led to the allegation of error and which was the basis for reversal of the judgment of conviction in this case states:
“A person cannot be said to be under arrest when merely an intention or attempt to take, seize, or detain him occurs, resulting in no seizure or control over the person.”
Contrary to the majority, I find this principal adequately embraced in the given instruction where it stated:
“You are instructed that an arrest is the taking, seizing, or detaining of the person of another * * * by any act that indicates an intention to take him into custody and that subjects him to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest * * (emphasis added)
Appellant’s refused instruction was repetitive and would have unduly emphasized this particular aspect of the case.
For the reasons stated, I dissent and would vote to affirm.