Iseli v. State

160 P.3d 1133

2007 WY 102

Michael Dale ISELI, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 06-181.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 26, 2007.

Representing Appellant: 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: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and James Michael Causey, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Causey.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] This is an appeal from the appellant's convictions for interference with a peace officer and causing bodily injury to a peace officer, in which the appellant raises several issues concerning jury instructions. We conclude that the instructions as given adequately informed the jury as to the law and the appellant's theory of defense, and we, therefore, affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did the district court err in instructing the jury as to the elements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b) (LexisNexis 2005)?

2. Did the district court err in refusing to give an adequate theory-of-defense instruction?

3. Did the district court err in refusing to give the appellant's profferred self-defense instructions?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Investigator Davis of the Natrona County Sheriff's Office (NCSO) was aware that several felony warrants existed authorizing arrest of the appellant. Davis was also aware that the appellant might be en route from New Mexico to Wyoming to see his wife. At approximately 11:30 a.m., on August 28, 2005, while off duty, Investigator Davis was informed by NCSO Corporal Frimml that the appellant's wife had told authorities that the appellant was supposed to meet her at Edness Kimball Wilkins Park in Natrona County between noon and 1:00 p.m. on that date. Given the short time to prepare an arrest plan, Davis drove to the park in an unmarked car, and in civilian clothes, but with a badge on a chain around his neck, outside his shirt. Uniformed officers in marked patrol vehicles also approached the park: Corporal Frimml and Deputy Arnold in one, Deputy Walters in another, and Deputy Means in yet another.

[¶ 4] Shortly after arriving at the park, Davis observed the appellant's wife get out of her car and tie her dog to a fence post. Davis had planned to intercept the appellant before he reached his wife, but the appellant arrived, parked his vehicle, and walked over to his wife, lying down on the ground next to her. Davis parked behind the appellant's vehicle to prevent escape, radioed the other officers that the appellant was already there, and began walking toward the couple with his service revolver drawn but down by his side.

[¶ 5] As he walked toward the appellant, Davis verbally identified himself as a deputy sheriff and stated that he had a warrant for the appellant's arrest. Davis ordered the appellant to remain on the ground, but the appellant jumped to his feet, looked at Davis, and then yelled at his wife, "I can't believe you turned me in." While continuing to yell at his wife, the appellant began to walk toward the vehicles. When Davis followed, the appellant turned and walked back toward his wife, threw a beer bottle at her, and then turned and ran toward a restroom and the park's main road. Davis gave chase, repeating that the appellant was under arrest. Just after the appellant crossed the road, Davis caught up with and tackled him. As they hit the ground and began to struggle, the appellant struck Davis in the sides and legs. The chain holding Davis's badge was broken and the appellant's glasses were knocked from his face. The appellant grabbed Davis's hands and arms, and then began pinching Davis's leg. When Davis did not let go of him, the appellant grabbed Davis's throat with his left hand.

[¶ 6] When Davis felt that the appellant was trying hard to choke him, Davis began to fear for his life, so he struck the appellant on the side of his head with the rubber butt of his pistol. That had no effect, so he struck the appellant again, this time with the pistol's metal barrel. The appellant then released his hold on Davis, rolled away, and began again to run away.

[¶ 7] Corporal Frimml, and Deputies Arnold and Means, had by that time arrived on the scene. They identified themselves as peace officers, Deputy Means doing so by way of the public address system in his patrol vehicle. The appellant looked back at the deputies, but continued to run. The appellant slowed down when Corporal Frimml pumped a shell into his shotgun, allowing Deputy Arnold to catch up with and tackle the appellant. The appellant even then continued to resist, refusing to place his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. He did so only after Corporal Frimml placed his foot on the appellant's back to keep him on the ground. He was then handcuffed, placed in a patrol vehicle, and transported to jail.

[¶ 8] The appellant was charged with interference with a peace officer, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(a) (LexisNexis 2005) and causing bodily injury to a peace officer, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b) (LexisNexis 2005). Those sections read as follows:

(a) A person commits a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both, if he knowingly obstructs, impedes or interferes with or resists arrest by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties.

(b) A person who intentionally and knowingly causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years.

The misdemeanor count alleged that the appellant interfered with Corporal Frimml and Deputy Arnold. The felony count alleged that the appellant caused bodily harm to Investigator Davis.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 9] We reiterated our standard for the review of jury instructions in Adams v. State, 2003 WY 152, ¶ 4, 79 P.3d 526, 529-30 (Wyo. 2003):

It is also well established that a trial court has a duty to instruct a jury on the general principles of law applicable to the case at issue. A trial court is given wide latitude in instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire charge covers the relevant issue, reversible error will not be found. Instructions must be considered as a whole, and individual instructions, or parts of them, should not be singled out and considered in isolation. Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 8, 34 P.3d 271, [274] (Wyo. 2001); Coburn v. State, 2001 WY 30, ¶ 9 20 P.3d 518, [520] (Wyo.2001); Merchant v. State, 4 P.3d 184, 190 (Wyo.2000).

Jury instructions shall 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. Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057, 1061 (Wyo.2000). Prejudicial error must be demonstrated, and prejudice will not be demonstrated unless the instruction confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law. Wilson v. State, 14 P.3d 912, 916 (Wyo.2000). Further, a failure to instruct properly on an element of a crime does not constitute plain error where evidence of the defendant's guilt is overwhelming. Id.

[¶ 10] Specifically with regard to what has come to be known as the "theory of defense" instruction, we said the following in Holloman v. State, 2002 WY 117, ¶¶ 15-16, 51 P.3d 214, 219 (Wyo.2002) (footnote omitted):

Due process requires the trial court to give a correct instruction to the jury that details the defendant's theory of the case. Blakely v. State, 474 P.2d 127, 129 (Wyo. 1970). The instruction must sufficiently inform the court of the defendant's theory and must be supported by competent evidence. Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486, 490 (Wyo.1992). A theory of the case is more than a comment on the evidence that tells the jury how to consider the evidence. Ellifritz v. State, 704 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1985). Fundamentally, the instruction must in the first instance be a proper theory of the case, or theory of defense, instruction. That is, the offered instruction must present a defense recognized by statute or case law in this jurisdiction. Bouwkamp, 833 P.2d at 490.

As Bouwkamp explained, "[t]heory of defense instructions are to be derived from and address criminal defenses provided for by statute or acknowledged by this court." Id. It further noted "common-law defenses are retained unless otherwise provided by this act." Id. (quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-102(b)). Additionally, this Court has discussed acceptable defenses, notably in Keser v. State, 706 P.2d 263, 269 (Wyo. 1985). See also 1 Paul H. Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 21, at 70 n. 1 (1984); 1 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal law § 39 (15th ed.1993).

Any competent evidence is sufficient to establish a defense theory even if it consists only of testimony of the defendant. Best v. State, 736 P.2d 739, 745 (Wyo.1987). We view the evidence in a light favorable to the accused and the accused's testimony must be taken as entirely true to determine if the evidence is competent. Duckett v. State, 966 P.2d 941, 944 (Wyo.1998). Even if the court deems the evidence to be weak, or unworthy of belief, the instruction must be given if a jury could reasonably conclude the evidence supports the defendant's position. Id. The refusal to allow an instruction requested by the defendant when due process requires the defendant's instruction be given is reversible error per se. Id.

See also Burkhardt v. State, 2005 WY 96, ¶ 12, 117 P.3d 1219, 1223-24 (Wyo.2005); Olsen v. State, 2003 WY 46, ¶ 146, 67 P.3d 536, 590 (Wyo.2003).

However, we have also noted that "[n]ot every...