Schnitker v. State, 401 P.3d 39

On Sept. 26, 2015 Schnitker entered Gartman’s pickup to obtain methamphetamine; a surveillance video showed an altercation during which Schnitker fatally stabbed Gartman.
Schnitker was charged with first‑degree felony murder (underlying felony: aggravated burglary), second‑degree murder (later dismissed), and aggravated burglary.
Before trial the State moved to bar self‑defense as a defense to felony murder; the district court agreed and refused a proposed instruction defining “in the perpetration of.”
Jury convicted Schnitker of first‑degree felony murder and aggravated burglary; district court sentenced life for felony murder plus a consecutive 15–25 year term for aggravated burglary.
On appeal Schnitker argued (1) the court erred by barring a self‑defense instruction for felony murder, (2) the court erred in refusing his proposed definition of “in the perpetration of,” and (3) the imposition of both felony murder and underlying‑felony sentences violated double jeopardy.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the felony‑murder conviction, rejected the proposed instruction as redundant, and agreed the aggravated burglary sentence must be vacated for double jeopardy, remanding to vacate that sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schnitker)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether self‑defense is available to a defendant charged with felony murder	Self‑defense should be available because vehicle burglary lacks inherent violence; Schnitker was not initial aggressor and attempted retreat	Self‑defense is unavailable where killing occurs in perpetration of an enumerated felony; allowing it would defeat felony‑murder purpose	Self‑defense is not available to one who kills while engaged in an enumerated felony (felony murder)
Whether court erred by refusing Schnitker’s proposed instruction defining “in the perpetration of”	The phrase has distinct meaning from “in the course of committing” and is needed to show continuous transaction vs. flight to escape	Instruction defining “in the course of committing” correctly and adequately covered the issue; proposed instruction was redundant	No abuse of discretion in refusing the proposed instruction; existing instruction adequately covered the law
Whether sentencing for both felony murder and the underlying aggravated burglary violates double jeopardy	Imposition of both sentences is impermissible	State conceded sentence for underlying felony should be vacated	Vacate the aggravated burglary sentence and remand for entry of order vacating that sentence

Cook v. State, 841 P.2d 1345 (Wyo. 1992) (describing felony‑murder rule and legislature’s selection of violent felonies)
Cloman v. State, 574 P.2d 410 (Wyo. 1978) (felony‑murder requires killing occur as part of one continuous transaction/res gestae)
Bouwkamp v. State, 833 P.2d 486 (Wyo. 1992) (sequence of events not dispositive; killing must be part of the unbroken chain of the felony)
Richmond v. State, 554 P.2d 1217 (Wyo. 1976) (felony‑murder strict responsibility principle)
Drennen v. State, 311 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (defining initial aggressor analysis; requires defendant not be at fault in bringing on difficulty)
Celaya v. State, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983) (rejecting self‑defense instruction where defendant argued no felony occurred and killing occurred during alleged theft)