*1 Wayne DUCKETT, Appellant Steven
(Defendant), Wyoming,
The STATE of (Plaintiff).
Appellee
No. 97-54. Wyoming.
Supreme Court
Sept. Defender; Hackl,
Sylviа State Public L. Counsel; Domonkos, Appellate D. Donna Lozano, Appellate Coun- M. Assistant Diane sel, Appellant. General; Hill, Attorney Paul S.
William U. General; Rehurek, Attorney D. Mi- Deputy Attorney Pauling, Assistant chael Senior Tibbetts, General; Georgia L. Senior Assis- Lauer, General; É. Attorney Theodore tant Director, Program; Prosecution Assistance *2 Noonan, Director, forming jury and Krista L. Student for the that the State must Appellee. prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act self-defense? C.J., LEHMAN, THOMAS,
Before MACY, GOLDEN TAYLOR* JJ. II. FACTS 12, 1996, On June at about 10:00 11:00 TAYLOR, Justice. a.m., Duckett Mary went to the home of Convicted of for assault stab- (Carlson) bearing guitar Carlson his and a altercation, bing opponent appеllant his in an Duckett, 12-pack Carlson, of beer. and her refusing claims the district court erred in boyfriend, (Hetler), Mylo spent Hetler the jury instruct the on others as day drinking while Duckett and Carlson legal justification Appellant his for actions. played together. point, music At some compounded the court contends district tape Duckett and Carlson decided the by an improper response error instruction in daughter’s music on Carlson’s karoake ma- jury’s deliberations, inquiry, during early chine. After a short break in the eve- regarding lengths might the to which go one ning, Duckett returned to Carlson’s home Finding appellant defense of another. neighbor, with Sonny his wife. Carlson’s presented sufficient evidence to warrant an (Zentner), friend, Zentner and another Rod- instruction on his we re- (Miears), ney joined Miears them. All con- - verse and remand for a new trial. drinking, tinued while Duckett and Carlson “jam” in the garage. continued I. ISSUES on, eomradery As time went deterio- (Duck- Appellant, conjunction Wayne sobriety rated in Steven Duckett ett), presents participants. Eventually, three issues for Carlson review: and Duck- argued respective talents, ett about their I ISSUE culminated Carlson’s order that the appellant Whether the was denied his con- premises. Ducketts leave Duckett and rights process stitutional to due when the left, wife his but moments later returned in court B refused Defense Instruction re- tape order to retrieve the musical so garding defense of others. one steal uncopyrighted orig- could Duckett’s II ISSUE inal material. Whether trial court erred when it re- undisputed It is that after Duckett and his fused instruct the State wife garage, returned to the Carlson and beyond prove a reasonable doubt that engaged physical wife alterca- appellant did act in self-defense as tion, while at same time Hetler and per Defense A. Instruction struggled Duckett on the floor. It also III ISSUE during fight uncontested that between appellant Whether denied Hetler, Duckett and Duckett stabbed Hetler by jury by to a trial guaranteed as eight testimony times. con- Wyoming United States and Constitutions battles, why, flicts as to who initiated effectively
when the trial court directed еxtent of the violence. Because the issue appellant verdict its in this case is whether sufficient facts were response in Instruction 23. presented to warrant a instruction on Wyoming, appellee, phras- The State of others, the defense we recount the facts as es the issues as follows: at trial. Oien v. Duckett advanced (Wyo.1990). denying
I. Did err the district court appellant’s requested jury instruction Duckett testified that when his wife on others? tape, reached pushed for the musical Carlson II. Did refusing the district court err in away. her then reached
appellant’s proposed tape, stopped instruction in- musical when he heard his * expedited Chief Justice at time of conferenсe. Mylo. They let “I stab wouldn’t scream, ing, Duck- had to killing me.” “Help. She’s
wife motel help you.” proprietors top of his me turned, and saw Carlson ett and his who found Duckett officer wife, against the concrete slamming her head her, stated that running from the scene all help Hetler wife moved floor. When *3 assault- told them his wife had been As he Duckett tackled him. off the couch and jumped help off; ed, being and couldn’t floor, he was held down glasses flew he Duckett’s hit the wife, Duck- his assailant. but his so he stabbed clearly happening was not see what could during question- repeated statement ett this screaming. Hetler was hear his wife could station, adding that he police at struggled. Duck- they top of Duckett off, gеt to but that Hetler warned Hetler him Carlson to free because ett told Hetler * * him help “kept punching to killing his wife and he needed was stop help to him asked Hetler her. Duckett charged as- Duckett fought, men Duckett As the two Carlson. 15, jury on October sault and tried before help while he begging wife could hear his jury instruction confer- During hitting floor. her head continued to hear ence, refused Duckett’s the district court going he he “was to have Finally, told Hetler “defense of proposed regarding instruction pulled his knife and Duekett him[.]” to hurt others,” explaining and another instruction Hetler, Hetler an- it made stabbed but prove beyond a prosecution must until he continued to stab grier. Duckett that Duckett did not act reasonable doubt push him. As to Hetler off of was able evidence, At the close self-defense. wife, “[sjomebody get his Duekett tried on the jury was instructed ** * back shirt from the grabbed [his] jury After the retired for delib- self-defense. garage door.” they swung towards the [him] erations, judge sent several notes were wife, and “some- again He moved toward his instruction, including asking for further * * * and chased body had the baseball bat right force to questions regarding the to use out the door.” [him] objection, protect others. Over jury, further instructed the district court nothing more he could Realizing there was right abe wife, “For the ‘defense of others’ garage Duekett do to reach fled must have the Defendant lawful knocking on the street and “stumbled” dоwn person per- against the used doors, help. he knocked looking for When threatening someone else.” to be door, ceived propri- it on a motel office roused call Duekett told them to etors next door. returned, guilty After a verdict and he wife was assaulted 911 because his The district moved for a new trial. Duckett proprietors com- someone. The had stabbed motion, timely Duckett court denied briefly with the plied, spoke and Duekett appeal to this court. filed returning to his wife. When operator before area, he saw his wife got back to the REVIEW III. STANDARD OF Zentner’s, the house next door to leaving lati “given wide court district wife, grabbed his Duckett Carlson’s. long as jury; and as instructing tude awаy. ran then law and correctly state the instructions corrob- of Duckett’s version were Portions adequately cov charge jury the entire Carlson testified orated other witnesses. issues, will not be error reversible ers fight, Mrs. Duckett during State, P.2d v. Baier found.” banshee,” and that she like “scream[ed] instructions (Wyo.1995). look at all the We killing my saying, Duckett “She’s remembers charge to together to determine whether killing Mrs. Duckett my wife.” wife. She’s expressed properly the law jury her, pinned jumped on testified that Carlson State, (Wyo. Vigil 859 P.2d case. against the and beat her head her arms down 1993). screamed Duckett’s concrete floor. She duty of the trial court is times, “The out. or five then blacked name four the law present in the instruсtions they ran that as Mrs. Duekett also testified actually raised scene, applicable the issues say- she remembers from the Baier, 756; trial, evidence.” P.2d Hatha- At Duckett testified that he never be- State, way (Wyo.1981). danger, lieved he was imminent right A has the to have instruc- stabbed Hetler because he believed his wife case, theory tions on his of the or his defense was in imminent and that Hetler presented jury, if the instructions go suf- would not allow him to to her rescue. court, ficiently however, inform the of The district found that the competent defense and if evidence exists ap- “self-defense of others” supports expressed plicable the law in the in- in this case because Duckett used structions. Amin v. his own not his wife’s. (Wyo.1991) (citing Thom v. 792 P.2d The district court reasoned that “it stretches *4 192, (Wyo.1990)). things say 195 We the evidence may view to the Defendant use in light a favorable to the deadly accused and “the person force on a fourth in order to testimony accused’s must be taken as entire- of right utilize the self-defense.” Over Duck- ly true” to if objection, determine the evidence is com- ett’s the district court concluded Oien, petent. 797 P.2d at 549. Even if the theory justification that Duckett’s of weak, court to deems evidence be or must on rest self-defense than rather defense unworthy belief, of the instruction must be of others. given reasonably if could conclude the affirmatively The implement- district court supports position. evidence the defendant’s ruling response jury’s ed this in ques- to the State, 520, Stagner v. 842 (Wyo. P.2d right tion: a man legally “Does have the to 1992) State, (quoting Goodman v. necessary protect use whatever force is to
400,
(Wyo.1977)).
“The refusal to allow any individuals other than himself?” Over
requested by
an instruction
the defendant
objection,
in-
district court
process requires
when due
the defendant’s
jury:
structed
“For the ‘defense of oth-
given
instruction be
per
reversible error
to
a right
ers’
be
lawful
Oien,
se.”
against
perceived
to be threaten-
ing someone else.”
IV. DISCUSSION
Thus,
specific
issue in this case is
A.
Instruction
on Defense of Others
inflicting
whether
harm
person
aon
in
applies
“defense
others”
Duckett contends the district court erred
рerson
in
situations
which the
harmed did
denying
opportunity
to con-
actually
defended,
person
threaten the
justi-
sider whether his actions
legally
were
actively prevented
the rescuer
fied under the
of defense of others.1
reaching the assailant.
Absent
statute de-
379,
In Leeper v.
(Wyo.
fining
Wyoming,
others
we
1979),
recognized
we
this common law de-
rely
expressed
common law as
fense:
judicial
pro-
decisions.
research
asserting
One
of defense
directly
vides
case law which
decides this
steps
position
of another
into the
specific issue. We
gen-
therefore turn to the
person defended. Defense of another
justifi-
principles
eral common law
regarding
takes its form and cоntent from defense of
cation for the use of force to determine the
self. The
justified
using
defender is not
scope of the defense.
reasonably
unless
or she
believes
person
defended is in immediate dan-
Defense of another is an extension of
harm,
ger
bodily
of unlawful
principles
and that the
Leeper,
self-defense.
pre-
force is reasonable and
P.2d at 383. The common law extends the
vent that threat.
right of
against any
self-defense to defend
proposed
person
1. Duckett’s
justi-
Instruction B
is threatened with an attack that
reads:
reasonably necessary
fies
use
of force as is
right
of self-defense of others exists
under
person
circumstances to secure the other
person
grounds
when a
who has reasonable
from the attack.
believe,
actually
does believe that another
assailants,
argues that the extension of
togeth-
The State
who
number
person
a fourth
of others” to
serious
“defense
er,
when
implicitly rejected by the
Penal Code.2
Model
Foley,
128 W.Va.
bodily harm. State
provides:
(1945).
Code 3.05
Model Penal
85 S.E.2d
for the Protection of Other
Use of Force
has been
another]
to defend
[The
Persons.
if the defendant’s
available even
held
be
(1) Subject
provisions
of this Sec-
directed
act
defense was not
3.09, the
of force
tion and of Section
use
against a
directed
actual
but was
upon
of another is
or toward
who,
particular circum-
under the
justifiable
protect
person when:
a third
stances,
reasonably
suspected
be
could
(a)
the actor would be
under
being a criminal confederate of
time of
3.04[3]
using
such force
Section
assailant.
the direct
injury he
protect himself
Am.Jur.2d,
Battery, § 63 at 58
Assault and
to be threatened
believes
Ala.App.
(citing
Gafford
protect;
whom he seeks
(1953)).
See also
859-60
68 So.2d
(b)
ac-
the circumstances as the
under
*5
(S.D.
Huth,
485, 488
N.W.2d
State
be,
person
them to
the
tor believes
1983) (upholding
stating the de
instruction
justi-
protect
he
would be
whom seeks
upon an
and
honest
“must have acted
fendant
force;
protective
and
using
fied in
such
necessity
good
and a
conviction of
reasonable
(c)
that his inter-
the actor believes
or
[person harmed]
the
faith belief that
protection of
necessary for the
vention is
[person
the
acting in concert with
someone
person.
such other
seriously injury
to kill or
intended
harmed]
Pe-
The
that because Model
State contends
member].”)
[family
§§
and 3.05 make
reference
nal Code
3.04
correctly notes that
the eases
The State
against anyone other than
use of force
the
oth
addressing the
of force
situations
use
applica-
implicitly
it
limits
the
three-person “assail-
than the common
er
“three
of others
the classic
tion of defense
in
scenario contain facts
anVvictim/rescuer”
pattern.
person”
inwаs
some
dicating the additional assailant
by
this contention
The State bolsters
directly threatening the victim. See
way also
3.09(3),
§
pointing
Penal Code
to Model
859-60;
Gafford,
at
State v. How
68 So.2d
which states:
ard,
(Mo.App.1995);
896 S.W.2d
Sections
When
actor is
under
French,
Pa.
611 A.2d
Com. v.
using
upon
force
or toward
3.03 to
3.08
(1992);
Howev
Foley,
Viewing the evidence
Duckett,
find the evi
refusing
we
instruct the
that the State
most favorable
to warrant an instruction
sufficient
beyond
dence
prove
reasonable doubt that
initiated
of others. Carlson
sup
In
not act
self-defense.
Duckett did
grabbed Mrs. Duckett and
fight when she
position,
port of this
Duckett cites Small
intoxi
was
her to the floor. Carlson
threw
denied,
(Wyo.1984),
cert.
cated,
her victim.
larger
much
than
and was
1215,
beyond prima demonstrated, a reasonable doubt on the but Once a facie case specific prove legal justifi- stated inclusion of the state- State must “[t]he the absence of proof beyond Here, ment of burden of would have been cation a reasonable doubt. * * preferable Scheikofsky, 636 P.2d at district court failed to instruct on Small, 423, We, clearly 1112. In 689 P.2d at we defense submitted Duckett. therefore, properly stated: self-defense is “[W]hen reverse and remand for a new specifically raised in- should be trial.
structed that the state has burden to prove beyond absence of self-defense a rea- LEHMAN, Justice, concurring. sonable doubt.” majority I opinion concur with the case,
The fact
this case
compelled
involved a
court
but feel
to com-
charge
opinion.
of
dissenting
assault rather
than ment on the
The dissent
homicide,
right
and defense of others
claim
rather than
asserts Duckett’s wife could not
self-defense,
of
change
does
self-defense as to Hetler
burden
because Hetler
“[njever,
proof.
any way
The reason
instruction
threatened Duckett’s
proof
burden of
any
bodily injury.”
when self-defense is raised is wife with
serious
Dis-
sent,
overlooks,
equally applicable
analysis
to the defense of
at This
others.6
chooses
proposition,
ignore,
As
initial
burden
on
Robinson,
De-
Ckiminal Law
131(b)
charged
(1984),
with aggravated assault
whether the full or
fenses
prima
every
section,
to establish
facie
case
ele
truncated
Relying
version.
on this
was,
alleged legal justification.
majоrity’s
ment
his
position
See
is that
Hetler
Amin,
260-61;
effect,
811 P.2d at
threatening
Ramos v.
Mrs. Duckett
restrain-
822,
(Wyo.1991);
806 P.2d
Leeper,
coming
her
her
husband
aid.
words,
aggressor, Admittedly, Carlson or Hetler. *8 hypothetical posed by V. the Robinson CONCLUSION trea- tise intriguing perhaps is more and would of Defense others as for the adapt better a screenplay to than the drunk- infliction harm applicable of on another is not place en in garage. melee took Carlson’s only to an actual but also to those However, it sophisti- is hard to see how this acting in concert with the to assailant any cation makes difference. extent the necessary defensive force used is Also, and reasonable. The defendаnt has the bur- application Leeper dissent’s of of showing den the facts for (Wyo.1979) each misguided, is legal justification element of his if disingenuous. avows, for ac- not The dissent “If charged tions when with aggravated adopted by assault. the rule majority here were Wyo. (1997) show, provides, doubt, § Stat. beyond 6-2-502 in rele- The State a reasonable part: vant that the circumstances under which the defen- (a) person guilty A is assault and dant acted manifested an extreme to indifference battery he: if value of human life. If the finds that a (i) bodily injury Causes serious to another truly acted in self-defense or defense intentionally, knowingly recklessly or under others, then circumstances are not those manifesting circumstancеs ence to the value extreme indiffer- required statute. life[.] of human ease, consequently no there was law, have been this Leeper would then Mrs. to killing in district court perhaps ev- error the refusal justified shooting and in Judg- give instruction. The might attempted requested have to ery who in be dispatch Johann- ment and this case should with her effort Sentence interfere Dissent, Succinctly, nothing dis- is in this Two critical facts affirmed. there at 951. sen.” First, that Duckett’s wife Leeper persuades from the case at bar. record that me tinguish deadly justified using mutu- in were would have been Leeper’s husband Johannsen Hetler, against not if not her husband could force she would combatants. Since al that, self-defense, not has Leеper justified doing Mrs. could been in have assert present In the no a defense of others defense of others. better claim to invoke the favor, case, theory. in to a viewing the facts than she had self defense mutual Carlson were not Mrs. Duckett and acting in con- invoking In the fulcrum of aggressor. was the Carlson combatants. cert, majority opinion in mani- this case the self-defense, Duckett would thus assert Mrs. quotation The full disingenuity. fests permits to invoke in turn her husband 131(b) Defenses, Robinson, CRIMINALLaw of others. the defense (1984), persuasive less at 73 is far than Second, using deadly Johannsen was not proposed truncated version included Leeper’s husband. For this against force majority The full reads: opinion. version reаson, Leeper Mrs. us- (b) Triggering Conditions or ing deadly force Johannsen anyone with Jo- trig- concert force is defensive (1) true if hannsen. This is even Johannsen gered, as noted subsection case, aggressor. unjustifiably Carlson principle, aggressor been when an slamming into a any legally-protected Mrs. Duckett’s head threatens harm Thus, question floor. it becomes concrete interest. whether the use for (1) Aggressor. “aggressor,” An acting on Mrs. Duckett’s behalf someone triggering is used in the condition term necessary. Leeper,
reasonable might well principle, subsection majority’s Leeper at 383. The reliance any person be defined as who contributes sound. harm to the defendant. threat of Finally, the insists that de- “[t]he dissent why “ag- apparent There reason ” others should be limited fense defense of purposes of the gressor, for the situations which the be to those directly limited should be clearly claim of self- entitled rescued Sup- threatening harm defendant. Dissent, is precisely 951. This at defense.” leader, X, gang pose an underworld opinion majority endeavors do. what the Y, D underlings, to kill of his orders one in D n attempts important, majority More presence. Y both X and while aof difficult reach a workable resolution only X is vulnerable Suppose further that to n defensive battery homi- problem. Justifications (Y bulletproof D has a easily invoked. cide should not be vest) X is that Y act while will that, majority oрinion recognizes im- presents Y Although the more alive. *9 times, no choice but to come is left is as danger, dangerous X as and mediate one, stranger, of a loved or even a to the aid any other responsible the threat as for We must trust in need of assistance. Indeed, if D Y in self- aggressor. kills facts, of will be able to juries, as arbiters defense, to do mayX order someone else justified. when such actions determine D job, threat to will continue. and the self-defense, be able to claim D should THOMAS, Justice, dissenting, with whom then, Ad- as Y. against X as well MACY, Justice, joins. D to mittedly, may be more difficult for it more against X a that force majority opinion in this demonstrate I dissent from the is neces- aggression source of I hold that Duсkett was not distant case. would (c) of this sary, subsection of as described to a of defense others entitled 950
section,
posed by
but the threat
X should
The rule allows defense from unlawful
attacks,
trigger a
for some action.
and under the traditional
was not
coming
defender
Clearly,
discussing
the author was
self-de-
aggressor
the defense of an
one
who
fense,
others,
not defense of
and the circum-
rights
initiated the battle.
theAs
of the
sophisticated
stances are much more
than
right
defender are
with the
coterminous
the combat between Duckett’s wife
Carl-
and
self,
the defense of
as
who initi
one
son.
ated
battle
no
self-defense
abandonment,
absent
withdrawal or re
majority position
Thе fulcrum
communicated,
treat available or
one who
unsound,
Wyoming authority
and the lever of
aggressor
defends an
so
his or
does
her
equally
majority
Leep-
weak. The
invokes
State,
peril.
v.
Crowder
time of the fatal shot was be rather than That is affirmed reversed. Afterward, standing him. He was over support. the resolution that I immediately with Earl arose Judith’s help attempted to revive All Johannsen. appeared Earl to have
witnesses testified injury, no no marks on his
suffered visible clothing. The was
person, or torn great Earl not in
entitled to believe harm, bodily
peril great of death by
deadly unjustified him or on killing unjustified, behalf. As PENDELTON, Nigel Andre all the evidence shows heat of (Defendant), Appellant on murder in passion, the conviction Indeed, degree appears Ju
second valid. that she Earl dead. dith testified believed Wyoming, The STATE of fact, believed, together If this she is be (Plaintiff). Appellee facts, with the other would indicate re No. 97-102. Indeed, vengeful the absence mind. such circum
passionate character under Supreme Wyoming. Court of as evi stances could have been considered Curtis, People v. dence of malice. Sept. (1884). Mich. N.W. 385 added). (emphasis Leeper, at 383 in- Leeper
If were to be followed in this
stance, it is clear that Duckett’s wife could as to
not have claimed self-defense suggest nothing
Hetler. There
ever, any way threatened wife If any bodily injury. the rule
with serious law, majority
adopted here were the Leeper
then Mrs. would have been shooting perhaps killing every person might attempted
who have to interfere dispatch I
her effort to Johannsen. submit dangerous this is a doctrine to have situation, any clearly it is
available any
dangerous situation in excess
indulgence leads to combat. majority in result reached Wyoming precedent. contrary to our
case supported by the
It is not treatise upon. The defense of defense of oth-
relied be situations in
ers should limited those clearly
which the be rescued is