Cassandra L. Mceuen v. State, 388 P.3d 779

Officer Buhmann activated lights and air horn to stop an ATV driven by Cassandra McEuen for lack of license plate; McEuen parked at an apartment complex and initially avoided providing identification.
When Buhmann reached for McEuen’s arm to prevent her from walking away, she kicked him repeatedly, including after being pressed face‑first against a building.
Buhmann subdued McEuen, pinned her to the ground, and arrested her with assistance from other officers.
A jury convicted McEuen of felony interference with a peace officer (intentional attempt to cause bodily injury to an officer engaged in lawful duties) and vehicle-registration/insurance offenses.
On appeal McEuen challenged only the felony interference conviction, arguing (1) the officer was not lawfully performing duties (excessive force), (2) insufficient evidence of specific intent to injure, (3) the court refused her self‑defense instructions, and (4) the court should have defined ‘‘lawful performance’’ and ‘‘attempt.’’
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no instruction error.

Issue	McEuen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether officer was lawfully performing duties (excessive force)	Buhmann’s grabbing/pinning was excessive, so he wasn’t lawfully performing duties	Officer’s actions were reasonable given evasive conduct and attempts to walk away; not excessive	Court held officer acted lawfully; no excessive force shown
Sufficiency of evidence of specific intent to cause bodily injury	No proof of specific intent to injure the officer	Repeated kicking and struggle permit reasonable inference of intent	Court found evidence sufficient to infer specific intent
Refusal to give proffered self‑defense instructions	McEuen asked jury instruction allowing self‑defense if officer wasn’t lawfully performing duties	Instruction misstated law for citizen‑officer encounters; no evidence supporting self‑defense instruction	Court affirmed denial: instruction misstates law; self‑defense against officer requires excessive force finding
Failure to define ‘‘lawful performance’’ and ‘‘attempt’’ for jury	Omission left jury without element definitions, prejudicing defense	Terms lack special statutory definition and carry their ordinary meaning; no requested instruction made at trial	Court rejected plain‑error claim: no clear rule violated and no special definitions required

Bruce v. State, 346 P.3d 909 (Wyo. 2015) (introducing evidence after moving for acquittal waives appeal of denial)
Hawes v. State, 335 P.3d 1073 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
Leavitt v. State, 245 P.3d 831 (Wyo. 2011) (specific intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
Best v. State, 736 P.2d 739 (Wyo. 1987) (self‑defense against peace officer is limited; excessive force by officer is prerequisite)
Roberts v. State, 711 P.2d 1131 (Wyo. 1985) (police conduct may be so provocative that officer is not lawfully performing duties)
Counts v. State, 277 P.3d 94 (Wyo. 2012) (terms in jury instructions should be given plain and ordinary meaning when not statutorily defined)