Mowery v. State
247 P.3d 866
Wyo.2011Background
- Mowery overdosed on Tramadol and Clonazepam on March 5, 2009 and was hospitalized under a hold due to suicide risk on March 6.
- Hospital staff and police encountered her attempt to leave the hospital; an officer stepped in front of her to prevent exit.
- Mowery struck the officer with a full soda can, causing facial injury; she later cannot recall events after the overdose.
- The State originally charged Mowery with both attempted and completed felony interference with a peace officer under § 6-5-204(b).
- At trial, the State sought to amend the information to remove the attempt charge; the court granted the amendment and instructed on the completed crime only; self-induced intoxication was not given as a defense.
- Mowery was convicted of the completed crime and sentenced to a term with probation on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment to remove the attempt charge was proper under Rule 3(e). | Mowery argues the late amendment prejudiced the defense. | State argues broad discretion to amend under Rule 3(e) and no substantial prejudice. | Amendment proper; no substantial prejudice to defense. |
| Whether self-induced intoxication could be a defense to the completed crime under § 6-5-204(b). | Mowery contends completed crime is specific-intent, thus intoxication is a defense. | State argues completed crime is general-intent, no intoxication defense. | Completed crime is general intent; self-induced intoxication not a defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkening v. State, 120 P.3d 680 (Wy. 2005) (amendment of information not prejudicial where both charges originated from same facts)
- King v. State, 40 P.3d 700 (Wy. 2002) (distinguishes attempted vs completed offenses; intoxication defense analysis)
- Dorador v. State, 573 P.2d 839 (Wy. 1978) (defines general vs specific intent in Wyoming law)
- Rowe v. State, 974 P.2d 937 (Wy. 1999) (child abuse statute as general-intent example)
- Dean v. State, 668 P.2d 639 (Wy. 1983) (explains specific vs general intent in light of “intentionally/knowingly” language)
- Crozier v. State, 723 P.2d 42 (Wy. 1986) (analyzes willfully/purposely and related terms in context of intent)