416 P.3d 764
Wyo.2018Background
- Sindelar drove to Boyer’s house after learning his own home had been broken into; he knocked, a brief exchange/sounds occurred, and Sindelar shot Boyer twice, killing him. Sindelar admitted shooting but claimed self-defense.
- Witnesses (girlfriend Hanten and roommate Rogers) testified there was no pause between Boyer going downstairs, opening the door, and two gunshots; no weapon was seen near Boyer when found.
- Sindelar testified Boyer lunged with a knife after opening the door; he said he warned Boyer and then shot when Boyer allegedly advanced. Physical and forensic evidence (no gunshot residue; wounds were distant; body remained inside house) undermined this claim.
- First trial: acquittal of first-degree murder; remand for retrial on other grounds. Second trial: jury convicted Sindelar of second-degree murder; he appealed, raising multiple instructional errors.
- Court reviews unobjected-to jury instructions for plain error: must show clear record, violation of a clear rule of law, and material prejudice (reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome).
Issues
| Issue | Sindelar’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to retreat / self-defense instruction | Court wrongly gave absolute duty to retreat; plain error | Instruction error but harmless because retreat was obvious or Sindelar was aggressor | Error in instruction existed but harmless; conviction affirmed |
| Second-degree murder — definition of "maliciously" | Instruction omitted Wilkerson’s heightened-recklessness language for "maliciously"; prejudicial | Instructions taken as whole satisfied Wilkerson; no clear error | No plain error; instructions as a whole met Wilkerson requirements |
| Failure to define "recklessly" / "heightened recklessness" | Court should have defined these terms for jury | No Wyoming precedent requires further definition beyond Wilkerson formulation | No plain error; no duty to separately define those terms |
| Failure to require State to disprove sudden heat of passion / stepped verdict form | Jury not instructed State must prove absence of heat-of-passion; form blocked consideration of manslaughter — structural error per Shull | Even if erroneous, Shull’s structural rule was later limited; here no evidentiary support for heat-of-passion; harmless | No plain error; no prejudice because no evidence or argument supported sudden heat of passion |
Key Cases Cited
- Drennen v. State, 311 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (rejecting instruction that imposed an absolute duty to retreat)
- Wilkerson v. State, 336 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2014) (defining malice to require recklessness under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life)
- Schmuck v. State, 406 P.3d 286 (Wyo. 2017) (addressing instruction-form issues and holding omission of separate definitions for "recklessly" is not plain error)
- Haire v. State, 393 P.3d 1304 (Wyo. 2017) (finding prejudice where erroneous retreat instruction and evidence of reasonable alternatives could have affected verdict)
- Johns v. State, 409 P.3d 1260 (Wyo. 2018) (plain-error standard applied to jury-instruction challenges)
- Garcia v. State, 667 P.2d 1148 (Wyo. 1983) (holding retreat instruction proper where opportunity to retreat was obviously available)
- State v. Sorrentino, 224 P. 420 (Wyo. 1924) (heat-of-passion may be based on fear; cited for definition scope)