Summary 2011 WY 28

Summary of Decision February 18, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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

Case Name: CG v. The State of Wyoming

Citation: 2011 WY 28

Docket Number: S-10-0124

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461771

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina (Kerin) Olson, Appellate Counsel; Wyoming Public Defender Program

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jessica Y. Frint, Student Director, and Crofton P. Sacco, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program.

Date of Decision: February 18, 2011

Facts: Appellant, a minor, appeals from the order of the juvenile court adjudging her guilty of two delinquent acts – interference with a peace officer and unlawful contact when the officer physically removed her from a neighbor’s car after the neighbor had driven her to school and she refused to exit and attend as was required by her previous CHINS designation.

Issues: Whether there was sufficient evidence that the officer was in the lawful performance of his official duties when he physically removed Appellant from her neighbor’s car. Whether the juvenile court erred in finding that Appellant was not acting in self-defense when she struck the officer in the forearm.


Holdings: A peace officer’s duties are not limited to arrests for crimes but encompass a broad range of activities. In addition to performing traditional law enforcement activities, such as investigating crimes, arresting perpetrators, and issuing traffic citations, peace officers routinely engage in a variety of community caretaker functions that are unrelated to the detection and investigation of criminal activity, including performing welfare checks, helping stranded motorists, preserving property, and assisting and protecting citizens in need. In the instant case, the record discloses that Appellant had refused to exit the neighbor’s vehicle despite numerous requests by her Mother and the neighbor. The neighbor clearly wanted Appellant out of her vehicle and requested the officer’s assistance in getting her out. The officer acted upon the neighbor’s request out of concern for her safety, as well as the safety of Mother and Appellant. He testified that Appellant’s behavior was escalating and he was concerned the situation might get physical if he did not intervene. Given these facts, the officer was engaged in the performance of his community caretaker duties when he directed Appellant out of the neighbor’s vehicle and when he physically removed her. Therefore, the juvenile court correctly found that the officer was acting in the lawful performance of his official duties at the time Appellant resisted his efforts.

The law in Wyoming is clear that self-defense is not available to a person where the peace officer has not used excessive force. Thus, a finding that Appellant acted in self-defense when she struck the officer was contingent on a finding the officer used excessive force in effectuating her removal from the vehicle. The evidence presented to the juvenile court showed that the degree of force employed consisted of applying a compliance grip to Appellant’s right wrist, which she testified hurt “a little,” and physically pulling her from the vehicle. The juvenile court correctly determined that the force used by the officer was not excessive under the circumstances. Absent a finding of excessive force, the juvenile court had no legal basis upon which it could sustain Appellant’s claim of self-defense.

Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the juvenile court’s finding of guilt as to both offenses. The order of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant a delinquent child is affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.