Cody J. Tingey v. State
2017 WY 5
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Police responded to a 911 domestic disturbance call at Tingey's home; guests had left earlier and alcohol/marijuana had been used at the gathering.
- Tara Wisenbaker (May’s sister) arrived to take May home; an altercation occurred in which Tingey forcibly removed Wisenbaker from the house; she called 911 and waited outside.
- Officers arrived, smelled marijuana at the front (and back) door, attempted to speak with occupants, and ordered Tingey and May to leave; they did not comply; officers moved to secure the residence and obtain a search warrant.
- Officers entered the home; a physical struggle ensued during which Tingey punched Officer Robbins, grabbed Officer West’s glasses, kicked Officer Gilbert and Sergeant Sheets, spat at officers, and resisted placement in a patrol car.
- Tingey was charged with interference with a peace officer (two felonies, one misdemeanor) and misdemeanor simple assault; jury convicted on all counts and he appealed, arguing the court refused his theory-of-defense instructions and his trial counsel was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Tingey’s proposed theory-of-defense (self‑defense and search/seizure) instructions | Tingey: officers were not lawfully performing duties when they entered; therefore self‑defense and related instructions should be given | State: self‑defense against officers is available only if officers used excessive force; Tingey’s proposed instructions misstated law or would confuse jury | Court: No error — proposed self‑defense instructions misstated law; search‑and‑seizure quote would confuse jurors and add no useful guidance |
| Whether court committed plain error by failing sua sponte to give proper theory‑of‑defense instructions (excessive‑force or warrantless‑entry/arrest standards) | Tingey: court should have instructed jury on exigent‑circumstances/warrantless‑entry and that self‑defense applies if officers acted unlawfully | State: no competent evidence of excessive force; facts supported exigent‑circumstances justification for entry and probable cause for arrest | Court: No plain error — no reasonable basis in record to conclude officers used excessive force; exigent circumstances (odor of marijuana, risk of evidence destruction) supported warrantless entry and arrest |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion, renew JNOV motion, or propose proper defense instructions | Tingey: counsel’s omissions amounted to deficient performance and prejudiced the defense | State: even if counsel had acted differently, outcome would be the same because entry/arrest were lawful and evidence strong | Court: No ineffective assistance — Tingey failed to show prejudice given the lawful entry/arrest and overwhelming evidence |
| Whether warrantless entry/arrest was unlawful (implicating defenses) | Tingey: officers created the exigency or otherwise lacked lawful basis for entry/arrest | State: officers smelled marijuana, had probable cause, and exigent circumstances (risk of evidence destruction) justified securing the home and eventual arrest after violence | Court: Warrantless entry justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances; arrest supported once Tingey became violent |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. State, 736 P.2d 739 (Wyo.) (self‑defense against officers available only when officer uses excessive force)
- Mickelson v. State, 906 P.2d 1020 (Wyo.) (unlawful officer presence is a defense to interference charge but does not automatically permit use of force)
- Roberts v. State, 711 P.2d 1131 (Wyo.) (discusses limits on self‑defense against police and when police activity may not be lawful)
- Rideout v. State, 122 P.3d 201 (Wyo.) (odor of marijuana can supply probable cause; exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry to prevent evidence destruction)
- Miller v. State, 217 P.3d 793 (Wyo.) (application of exigent‑circumstances exception and limits on warrantless entry)
- CG v. State, 248 P.3d 186 (Wyo.) (officer’s limited compliance grip not excessive force)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)