Summary 2007 WY 102

Summary of Decision issued June 26, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Iseli v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 102

Docket Number: 06-181

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim State Public Defender, Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Causey.

Issues: Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury as to the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b). Whether the district court erred in refusing to give an adequate theory-of-defense instruction. Whether the district court erred in refusing to give the appellant’s preferred self-defense instruction.

Facts/Discussion: This appeal is from Appellant’s convictions for interference with a peace officer and causing bodily injury to a peace officer in which Appellant raises several issues concerning jury instructions. Jury instructions will not be ruled defective absent a showing that the instructions confused or misled the jury as to the proper principles of law and prejudiced the defendant. The theory of defense instruction to the jury must sufficiently inform the court of the defendant’s theory and must be supported by competent evidence. The district court must exercise discretion in determining what theory-of-defense instructions are to be given.
Did the district court err in instructing the jury as to the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b): The Court reviewed the proposed instructions and the instructions given by the district court. The instructions adequately informed the jury as to the elements of the crime and the State’s burden of proof and provided the legal basis from which Appellant could argue that he was not guilty because he did not know that Investigator Davis was a peace officer.
Did the district court err in refusing to give an adequate theory-of-defense instruction: The Court noted that if Appellant knew Davis was a peace officer, then he had no right to defend himself against arrest so no self-defense instruction was warranted. If Appellant did not know Davis was a peace officer, he could not be guilty of the charged crime so no self-defense instruction was warranted. If Davis had used excessive force then Appellant would have been entitled to defend himself but there was no evidence suggesting excessive force was used.
Did the district court err in refusing to give the appellant’s proffered self-defense instructions: There was no evidence to support proposed instruction “C.” Proposed instruction “D” was a misstatement of the law and “E” was refused by the district court for the same reasons. The Court stated it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to refuse to give those instructions.

Holding: The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Appellant’s proposed jury instructions.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2ja8w3 .