State v. Petrick, A-15-1104

On July 1, 2014, a citizen reported two youths looking into a parked SUV; La Vista officers responded and found Caleb Petrick on a bicycle in a restaurant parking lot.
Officer Jimenez asked Petrick to approach; Petrick responded with profanity and an elevated, agitated demeanor.
Officer Stolley attempted to detain Petrick by grabbing his wrist; witnesses’ accounts diverged about whether Petrick swung, resisted, or put Stolley in a chokehold.
A scuffle ensued, officers punched Petrick and threatened to use a Taser; Petrick was ultimately handcuffed and arrested.
A jury convicted Petrick of (1) assaulting an officer, (2) resisting arrest, and (3) obstructing a peace officer; district court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive terms.
Petrick appealed, arguing (a) the court failed to define “unreasonable force” in the self-defense instruction, (b) the court erred in excluding the department’s use-of-force policy, and (c) insufficiency of the evidence (primarily as to obstruction).

Issue	Petrick's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether court plain-erred by not defining “unreasonable force” in the self-defense instruction	Trial court had independent duty to define the term (should have used Yeutter definition)	No plain error; words are commonly understood and instruction followed pattern jury instruction	No plain error; instruction adequate and omission did not cause miscarriage of justice
Admissibility of La Vista use-of-force policy	Policy (esp. §301.6) was relevant and necessary to guide jury on reasonableness	Admission would confuse jury and improperly define reasonableness; Rule 403 exclusion appropriate	Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the manual under Rule 403
Sufficiency of evidence for obstruction of a peace officer	Evidence did not show threats or force to obstruct questioning	Officer testimony that Petrick swung, choked, resisted handcuffing, and struggled supported obstruction conviction	Evidence, viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, was sufficient to support conviction
Whether self-defense, if found, negates all charges	(Jury question suggested confusion) — Petrick implied unclear instruction left jury unsure	Instruction properly explained self-defense elements; jury question related to effect of self-defense on charges	No error; question did not show misunderstanding of “unreasonable force” and instruction adequate

State v. Yeutter, 252 Neb. 857 (1997) (trial court must instruct on self-defense if evidence raises claim officer used unreasonable force)
State v. Mowell, 267 Neb. 83 (2003) (party who fails to request instruction cannot complain on appeal)
State v. Adams, 251 Neb. 461 (1997) (plain error standard for instructional defects)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828 (2011) (trial court’s exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Campbell, 260 Neb. 1021 (2001) (resisting handcuffing and struggling can support obstructing a peace officer conviction)
State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (2016) (sufficiency review: appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)