Oien v. State

OIEN, Appellant Lee Randall

(Defendant), Wyoming, Appellee

STATE (Plaintiff). 89-203.

No.

Supreme Wyoming. Court

Aug.

charge factual circumstances. under the instruction made visible narrow between the definitions distance resisting escape detention arrest and from following line be- It the thin arrest. a tween of a or his conviction misdemeanor felony arguably embracing about general same conduct. successfully Oien also the re- argues for versal of his conviction misdemeanor Munker, D. State Public Defend- Leonard peace interference with a This is- officer. er, Gallivan, Wyoming M. Defender Gerald requires us to sue consider whether Williams, Program, David M. Student Aid allowing its court abused discretion WDAP, Carter, Intern, H. and Nicholas prosecutor to introduce into evidence Intern, WDAP, appellant. for Student judgment and sentence of Oien’s Gen., Meyer, B. John Joseph Atty. W. peace relating for breach Gen., Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Mary B. prior the residence where he lived events at Gen., Guthrie, for Atty. appellee. Sr. Asst. girlfriend. with his We reverse remand. CARDINE, C.J.,* and Before MACY, THOMAS, URBIGKIT, I.ISSUES GOLDEN, JJ. questions: appeal Oien’s

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice. I. insuffi- Whether the evidence was (Oien) appeals Lee Oien his felo- Randall support a cient matter of law to as a ny official escape conviction of from deten- escape deten- conviction of from official tion and misdemeanor conviction inter- a at most evidence shows where a We ference with officer.2 reverse during an struggle and a confrontation both convictions and remand retrial. attempt to followed unsuccessful by flight. argues successfully for the reversal sufficiency If II. court should find a escape felony appellant un- of the evidence convict addressing whether official detention 6-5-201, the court der Sec. whether W.S. judge committed reversible error prejudicial error below still committed theory give he refused to re- failing jury instruct after jury instruction. to be quest person “a cannot be said jury to inform the instruction was intended merely an intention under arrest when intention seizure cannot con- without him oc- attempt or detain stitute an arrest. We consider whether curs, resulting in no or control seizure encompass needed person.” over the for defense to the Oien’s case interfer- III. the conviction for escape Whether charge of from detention because stand police ence officer can necessary was a element to arrest * 1. W.S. 6-5-206 Chief Justice from official detention. for not more than three not result ($3,000.00), (a) (ii) A ^[******] of: felony punishable at time of oral than provides commits a crime both, three if in' the detention is the Escape is: (3) years, a fine of pertinent part: thousand dollars argument. by imprisonment if he escapes 2. W.S. year, A by imprisonment for not sists arrest obstructs, dollars impedes duties. person the lawful 6-5-204(a) provides: a fine ($1,000.00), or commits of not performance a misdemeanor more both, interferes officer than more if he while one thousand than one with or his official punishable knowingly engaged (1) re-

(B) An arrest for a crime. Wyoming’s where 474 P.2d at 129. Due Blakely, the evidence shows that offi- requires engaged per- cer the lawful Process Clause the trial court to a.) present the formance of his duties because there defendant's of the case by way no probable affirmatively cause for the arrest of or defense b.) appellant peace; by requested the for of of in breach and instruction —whether actually or to attempting the officer was to struction one similar it.4 Id. illegally the in appellant’s keys. seize house error identified the fourth issue consti part tuted an abuse of discretion on the of the IV. Whether court below erred in requires and reversal prosecution permitting inquire the to of misdemeanor conviction for interference plea guilty the defendant about his to with a officer. peace, compounded breach of the and the by admitting judgment and error the sen- II. FACTS following the plea, plea tence that concerned the defendant’s (Dale) behavior of the Mills Police Officer Dale prosecution’s theory the home and was Larry Department responded to a call from that the the (Nick). breach of occurred Mills po- Nicholson Nick called the Spider later at the Mini Mart. Poison of a in- lice because domestic disturbance volving Oien where Nick lived with V. Whether the court below erred in (Johnson) Bonnie and Oien. recording transcript or mother Johnson excluding the of home, Dale the prior in Once was inside mobile proceeding that Johnson Oien that ensure significance misled as to its was temper Dale leave. indicates Oien’s deprived and the defendant was quite active that when Dale arrived but opportunity explain. to agree did to As and Oien leave. Oien Dale to Our affirmative answers Oien’s second leave, prepared to Johnson indicated she dispositive. and fourth issues are The er keys her needed house and that Oien had ror identified the second issue violated keys handed Dale a them. Oien set process3 requires due and reversal gave Dale then to Johnson before felony escape conviction of from official offering to Oien where he needed to drive State, 760 Phillips detention. See v. P.2d go. keys that her Johnson told Dale house 388, State, (Wyo.1988); 391 Best v. 736 among keys were not those Dale had hand- 739, (Wyo.1987); P.2d 744 v. Goodman ed her. Oien left the mobile home at this (Wyo.1977); 573 400 and P.2d Blake point and Dale watched head toward P.2d “The ly v. 474 127 * * * Spider got Road. Dale into his Poison upon right to an instruction rests * n * quickly along pulled cruiser and side and precedent the of conditions [that] again Oien. This time offered drive sufficient to inform fered [is] accepted. Oien the court of the defendant’s Pulling Spider Mini competent up evidence in the record Poison there [is] Goodman, Mart, give support theory.” again 573 Dale that Oien Dale, (emphasis up keys. According original). P.2d at 408 his house litany lay withholding exited the vehicle with a “error an instruction Oien * * pertinent trailing time expletives involved behind issues Const, Cir.1987); provides Meyer, Wyo. that F.2d art. 6 United States v. 808 1304 § "[n]o life, Fuller, deprived liberty prop- (8th Cir.1987); person or People shall be 781 P.2d 647 erty process Pinero, without due of law." (Colo.1989); State v. Haw. Garcia, (1989); People Ill.App.3d proceeding 4. The central rule of criminal (1988); 120 Ill.Dec. 523 N.E.2d 992 to a the defendant is entitled (Iowa 1988); Broughton, State v. 425 N.W.2d 48 instruction, correctly if the instruction Com., (Ky.1978); Pace v. 561 S.W.2d 664 State v. support states law and facts in evidence (1989); Popescu, 237 Mont. universally theory, jur- followed in American Brooks Nev. illustrative, As see United States v. isdictions. (1988); Standiford, and State v. (9th Cir.1989); Lopez, 885 F.2d 1428 United 1988). (Utah Duncan, (6th Cir.1988); States v. 850 F.2d 1104 (10th Cooper, United States v. 812 F.2d 1283 cruiser, got yell- Oien You Dale out are instructed an arrest yell ing. exple- taking, seizing, detaining Oien he did not indicates another, (1) Dale, person by touching definitely that he in- tives but him; (2) putting by any hands on act keeping keys. Dale he his own formed event, take him any apparent- indicates intention to In Dale and Oien were custody subjects into him to the ly eyeball stepped eyeball when person actual control and will and told Oien he was under arrest back making arrest; (3) by the consent peace. disturbing the fled toward the to be arrested. Oregon parking Trail Bar lot. Dale fol- To parking in his lot there lowed cruiser to effect an must be ac- says to tual or attempted he restrain constructive seizure or detention where arrested, person voluntary That of or attempted Oien. restraint occasioned his custody, submission to and restraint quickly joined by Dep- a scuffle pretended legal must be under real or County uty Moore of the Natrona Sheriffs authority. grip he lost Department. reported his him just struck hard in on Oien before Oien added.) (Emphasis dropped testicles and fled Dale to his specifically objected Oien’s counsel and knees. grounds objection. articulated the to that felony escape Oien convicted of of brought felony to trial for from official detention was convicted charge escape of from official detention of a lesser included misdemeanor interfer- felony interference and a of charge5 ence with officer instead bodily causing injury. officer charge.6 This felony of interference jury judge The trial court refused this appeal followed. requested by instruction Oien. that, in Wyoming, You are instructed III. OF STANDARDS REVIEW is an arrest effectuated when there is the Appeal Ju,ry A. Instruc- Refused taking, detaining seizing, per- or of the tion by touching putting or son another appeal Our of review of an standard him, hands on or an act which indi- jury from a instruction contains refused an take him custo- cates intention to into State, 792 prongs inquiry. two Thom v. dy him to the subjects and which actual The (Wyo.1990). purpose to these person making and will control is questioning lines to ascertain two person byor of the the consent protected by is due whether the defendant arrested. arrest must also be Such during process guarantees to the accused pretended legal made under real or au- general question first looks appeal. an thority actual and result in the or con- if to the to see the defendant entitled per- structive seizure or detention requested theory defense case or voluntary son or submis- ar[r]ested assuming jury competent evi instruction — person custody. sion into A cannot be during trial to under developed dence was merely to be an said under arrest general ques pin request. The second or attempt intention actually looks if the defendant to see occurs, resulting in no sei- detain developed during the competent evidence person. or control over the zure request. first underpin trial to added.) (Emphasis array up questions prong is made gave usually up prong the second made Instead the trial court the while Thom, 192; question. following of one See instruction: felony supra. anee of duties is of a n. his official 5. See punishable by imprisonment for not 6-5-204(b) provides: 6. W.S. (10) years. than ten intentionally knowingly A who added.) (Emphasis bodily injury attempts to a causes to cause engaged perform- peace officer in the lawful Johns, State, 112 Idaho (Wyo.1989); P.2d at 240. See State 784 P.2d 237 Thomas 736 P.2d 1327 The form (Wyo.1989); Keller v. 771 P.2d 379 remains discretion instruction within the 388; Phillips, 760 P.2d Griffin provided court the substance Best, (Wyo.1988); theory of is other- defense P.2d 739. given. Meyer, States v. wise United Wyoming’s court trial violates Cir.1987). (8th F.2d 1304 process guarantee when due constitutional possible an instruction It is also give the defendant’s it fails yet Wyoming properly and law articulate if theory of the case incomplete such Wyoming theory properly articulates Stapleman v. properly “may be refused.” law, presented by instruc is not another If this tion, competent to under and has upon occur, it becomes “incumbent does conditions pin request. these “When give the court to either the instruction satisfied, process requires due are properly upon the ac- instruct otherwise give court to a correct instruction case,” even id. at cused’s jury encompassing the defendant’s instruction, entirely although “if the not Best, (empha the case.” P.2d at 744 736 correct, apprise the is at least sufficient to added). precedent sis When the conditions theory of defense” advanced court met, right present the to are a defendant by person accused. Id. at 76. See the is a funda of the case or defense P.2d Moya, 182 512 People v. Colo. right. 474 P.2d at Blakely, mental See 1155 130. next look to if the refusal We see upon requested instruction was based the Theory Defense Prong I: the Case the by the trial perception the Instruction in instruc requested embodied the principle analysis looks to Our at this level presented jury the equally to tion was the reasoning the behind the refusal “A trial court through another instruction. judge. requested instruction the trial if the proposed may refuse instruction begin by looking ensure that We to in instruc requested embodied the principle proper requested instruction “contain[s] instructions.” is covered other as it Wyoming” enunciation law (accord P.2d at Summers Griffin, 749 256 case or defense relates to the (Wyo.1986) P.2d 1044 v. Phillips, 760 the defendant. advanced 935, 938 v. 643 P.2d and Britton Coin, P.2d at See United States given The must (Wyo.1982)). instruction (9th Cir.1985). It is critical 753 F.2d 1510 theo affirmatively present the defendant’s Wyo correctly articulate that instructions such sub ry of the case defense before the instruc ming law because it is from due Once the process. satisfies stitution is to be jury that a if someone tions decides given requests an be defendant instruction part “If of an guilty. found or not Wyoming law correctly articulates erroneous, may a trial court offering instruction evidence to an substantial after reject instruction.” failure properly underpin request, the entire the “court’s Although P.2d to be Griffin, 749 at 256. cause main defense [defendant’s] objection presented jury duty affirmatively has “no excise trial court [consti process.” Blakely, denial of due and re portions of an instruction able tutes] added) (accord (emphasis at 130 the law of phrase properly state Hickenbottom, Wyo. case,” is not foreclosed counsel (1947)). P.2d State, doing so. Evans v. can An instruction Prong Competency II: of Evidence offending the de refused without also be Support Instruction process guarantee if it is due fendant’s argumentative unduly empha analysis, ask patently At this level our we Thomas, competent aspect of case. if there is record sizes one developed during APPLICATION support IV. Thomas, requested instruction. A. Instruction 237; Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089 Refused People v. (Colo.1984). mindful here that in We are in content of the determining an instruction fa- whether Wyoming properly struction states law. given, vor of accused should be an As the noted the In defense counsel light in a as favor- evidence must be viewed Conference, Wyoming struction law in justified,

able to him or her as is concerning in Phillips, arrest is articulated testimony as en- must be taken accused’s 760 P.2d at There we said: 390-93. tirely Stapleman, 680 at 75 true. cannot said to be under Goodman, 573 P.2d at 409 and {accord merely arrest when intention or an at- Pinero, 70 Haw. State v. take, tempt seize, or detain [or (1989)). occurs, resulting in no seizure or her] precedent If conditions are satis these person. control over fied, process Wyoming’s under Due due * * * Accordingly, we determine that requires that the Process Clause given jury by provided instruction. * * * Fuller, (Colo.1989); People give] court a correct defi- [did Moya, 512 P.2d 1155. refusal to allow nition of term as it is used under requested by defendant present applicable Wyoming statutes process requires the defendant’s due Wyoming case law. given per is reversible error instruction be Id. 392-93. 391; Phillips, se. See inter alia 760 P.2d at decision, In first we authentic substantive State, Scheikofsky v. requested Wy- to state 400; cate the Goodman, (Wyo.1981); 573 P.2d oming Phillips, 760 P.2d State, (Wyo. properly, law Thomas v. 1977), grounds overruled on other No then of contention for and assess absence State, (Wyo.1989); wack v. patently argumentative it denial that was 127; Hickenbottom, 474 P.2d Blakely, aspect emphasized one unduly or that it 178 P.2d 119. 240; Thomas, case. 784 P.2d at the (Utah Standiford, 769 P.2d Relevancy B. 1988). challenges This assessment also de- ap of review Our standard for an content of termination the whether peal challenges admissibility which the principle or the grounds of relevancy evidence on is abuse by another in- it is covered which stands establishing and the burden of discretion Summers, 725 P.2d at In struction. challenger. such lies with the See abuse case, requirement only legal not this (Wyo. 682 P.2d Jahnke v. in- charged offense for commission of 1984). phrase fairly can While that instruction, adequately by another covered of discretion has as its an slippery, abuse requested instruc- principle in the but point query of “whether the court chor by given instruction tion is excluded it reasonably could conclude as did.” Noet instruction allows the given because (Wyo. 721 P.2d zelmann infer effectuated jury to an arrest 1986). present standard was first Our attempt touching mere or an intention or a in Martin v. enunciated detain the accused. (Wyo.1986): support Competent evidence exists composite a discretion is Judicial expressed requested instruction. law things, among which are conclu- many Thom, Viewing Oien’s 792 P.2d 192. See criteria; objective it sions drawn as en- testimony no seizure occurred judgment exercised with means a sound tirely light as is most true and such regard right under circum- to what is him, he we are satisfied has doing arbitrarily so favorable and without stances engage precedent to met the conditions capriciously. allowing conclude that the introduction Blake- instruction. right to his 1155; judgment for breach Oien’s and sentence 130; Moya, 474 P.2d at ly, his residence for events within um- Pinero, protective 778 P.2d 704. tendency any to make the existence of have process is unfurled at of due brella consequence that is of de- any fact requested instruction point and Oien’s probable the action termination have allowed. should been it than would be without probable less evidence? Admissibility Evi- Relevancy B. Event a Disassociated dence About pertinent guilty to Oien’s The conduct to Disturbance Guilty Plea peace concerned plea for breach Charge Peace home and not at mobile within the conduct simply could not have Mini Mart. Dale county court to a pleaded Oien at Oien’s arrested he had believed peace charge from the disturbance by the fact This is evidenced residence. argu- involving an morning’s earlier events the Mini Oien to to drive that Dale offered girlfriend at himself and his ment between Obviously, this in fact did so. Mart and relating to the residence. Evidence their if Dale believed not have occurred would plea invaded plea involving the disturbance home. the mobile arrested Oien at had events felony trial which addressed anything that had occurred Consequently, and at a different which occurred later not relevant mobile home was at the locale. any charge now under consideration ap for an standard of review Our events is not pertaining to such evidence admissibility of peal challenges the addition, In introduction admissible. during felony misdemeanor W.R.E. violated misdemeanor looking the nature of the begins by “punishable the crime was 609 since challenge many challenge. Although the (1) of one imprisonment in excess death or relevant objection times framed year” nor did involve “dishonest[.] excluded7, in this case evidence was false statement.” Oien ar challenge is more fundamental. Nevertheless, sought to prosecutor guilty plea to gues of his the evidence and sentence of judgment introduce was, alia, inter irrele peace of the breach occurring at the plea referring to events an abuse vant and that its admission was probable to establish mobile home agree. of discretion. We we arrest. As for the warrantless cause provides: W.R.E. 1131, State, 711 P.2d in noted Roberts means evidence “Relevant evidence” may be cases where (Wyo.1985),there the exist- having any tendency to make arrests or unlawful unlawful warrantless consequence to any fact that ence is of may occasion under- seizures searches and the determination of the action cases, and, in such resistance standable probable or less it would probable than under prosecuted resisters cannot “the without the evidence. However, resisting arrest statute.” our by Oien for which review, alleged conduct in the standard of As noted our occurred resisting arrest was based understanding judge of whether the trial Mart, home. not at the mobile of discretion the Mini an abuse is made at committed regarding answering Consequently, the court could rea- by “whether was not peace Noetzelmann, plea sonably guilty conclude as did.” to breach criminal court question then at is relevant judge reasonably charges.8 the trial simply: Could justification the errone- This Peterson v. examination. 7. W.R.E. 403. See occurrence evi- misdemeanor use of the ous First, pre-tri- answers. two different dence has al, by specific in limine to error motion answers Oien's claim of Oien had filed 8. The State time, response, At that observing the evidence. that Oien first introduced evidence exclude argued would consti- charge during that the evidence peace his direct the State the breach of Referring judge “relevant the trial definition of exacerbated the situa- under the existence evidence” W.R.E. by allowing to be misled when arrest at has no the mobile home he refused to allow Oien introduce the any tendency “to make the existence of tape recording proceeding in which consequence fact that is of to the determi- pled guilty he had breach of probable nation of the action more or less only for events at his In residence. addi- probable than it the evi- would be without tion, prosecutor by the error continued Boppre, dence.” Neb. half-explained using during guilty plea Thus, (1990). 453 N.W.2d ad- 429-30 closing arguments. Having at the arrived judgement mission was abuse conclusion that abused his discretion inter alia it was irrele- because discretion, hold that we the absence was vant. Introduction of that conviction prejudicial might error. That error to Oien this error the have been more was verdict against dispute relevant the arrest tute evidence as "an admission duties. No about for crime, prej- peace. interest." The “without motion was denied the breach right objec- Gentlemen, udice” to a for at trial. The renewal Ladies and it has been sub- again during evidence, tion was trial and denied renewed you mitted into have seen the judicial proper without basis for comment. disturbing charge, peace. it is You have upon relevancy admission founded was not es- judgment seen also the and sentence Obviously, tablished. the residence incident guilty plea to that. the ac- You have seen sequence was closed in without arrest at that knowledgment from the Clerk of Court prosecuted, by time and when later was closed County Judge saying County Court and Court involving disassociated contended use decision that is a true and official document of that obscenity. of an court. justify The second answer to waiver where added.) (Emphasis objection properly is to introduction was made emphasized argument language the confusion and rebuttal, In misuse that followed. plea patently Oien's to distur false. relevancy effectively the State asserted the de bance of introduced misstatement, incorrectly brought any waive ob fense and introduction can application non-relevant if the evidence into jection reasonably related cross-examination event for which the made had oc- spelled direct out in examination. As at curred the Mini Mart not earlier at the 611(b): should be W.R.E. "Cross-examination occurred, stating: actually residence where it subject direct exami limited to the matter of the Raymond Deputy Mr. about Moore talked affecting credibility of nation and matters and the involvement with our Mills Police Marshall, Aldridge the witness." See 765 F.2d Nealy Spider officer the Poison Mini Mart. Cir.1985), (6th cert. denied 474 U.S. you exactly happened. testified to Dale what L.Ed.2d S.Ct. street, Deputy fifty right Moore was across the argument the State’s confuses waiver But They away. feet the same testified both to may argue The State relevance. thing. Nealy you told the defendant of Oien’s constitutes introduction peace. under arrest for breach of the That is any uses of evi blanket waiver future pled guilty the crime the Ladies to. defendant guilty plea Oien's dence. If conviction of Gentlemen, pled guilty if to breach of events at his home is irrelevant over arrest, peace, he knew that he was under Mart, resisting charge arrest waiv the Mini and he knew what for. he was under arrest For er not make that conviction relevant. does why taking So is he off across West Yellow- recognized waiver distinction between Highway, again, stone but then a second time relevance, Daniels, People Ill.App.3d v. 164 see Raymond Boynton Mr. said Mr. indicates 47, 669, 1055, 65, 687 Ill.Dec. N.E.2d 116 518 escape. Testimony not an on the stand was (1987); Distrib Seneca Bank v. Greenville First escape, that is not we did 157, 558, Co., Pa.Super. 163 uting A.2d 367 533 escape under those circumstances because (1987); Security Co. v. Ins. International attempting Dale did the baton Officer not take Life 679, (Tex.Civ.App. to, Beauchamp, 464 S.W.2d 682 he testified to use all minimum force that 293, 1971); Danforth, 371 v. 125 Wis.2d again he was told the defendant twice what 411, (1985); v. scuffle, and Haskins N.W.2d 413 during where the under arrest for 25, 97 Wis.2d N.W.2d avoiding arrest for defendant was a lawful it State recharacterized the conviction to make ground, flail- over three minutes down on the around, man, falsely appear to involve a time and being being totally different ing a wild point place was irrele you conviction Deputy tells out of control. throughout Moore —at purpose vant used the State. Waiver procedure. for the this Officer entire admission, may improper saying you you effect error from but under are are Well, certainly engaged it not make disassociative fact relevant under arrest. he was does performance objection proper the lawful of his official is taken. stated, I dissent and Builders, For the reasons favorable to Oien. See ABC Inc. affirm. would vote to (Wyo.1981). Phillips, v.

V. CONCLUSION a new

We and remand reverse escape from official felony charge

on

detention and the misdemeanor officer.

of interference with CARDINE, C.J., dissents, with whom COMPANY, a AMOCO PRODUCTION J., GOLDEN, joins. Petitioner, Corporation, Delaware Justice, CARDINE, dissenting, with v GOLDEN, Justice, joins. whom . STATE BOARD OF WYOMING given by the trial court EQUALIZATION, Respondent. necessary to

correctly set out the elements No. 89-249. effect We held these elements an arrest. only of law not to be correct statement Wyoming. Supreme Court of (Wyo. Phillips Sept. cases, 1988) City e.g. and earlier Rodarte Riverton, (Wyo. 1976), subsequent in a decision well. but Simonds by the The instruction offered

appellant was covered the instruction part of

given. The the refused of error and allegation

which led to the the basis for reversal case

judgment of conviction in this states:

“A cannot be said to be under merely an intention or at-

arrest when

tempt detain him oc-

curs, resulting in no seizure control person.”

over the princi-

Contrary majority, I find given in-

pal adequately embraced

struction where stated:

“You instructed that an arrest are seizing, detaining per- taking, * * * by any

son act that of another take him into an intention to

indicates subjects

custody

actual and will of control * * (emphasis the arrest making

added)

Appellant’s repeti- refused unduly emphasized

tive would have particular aspect of the case.

Case Details

Case Name: Oien v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 17, 1990

Citation: 797 P.2d 544

Docket Number: 89-203

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.