from the District Court of Campbell County The Honorable
Thomas W. Rumpke, Judge
Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender:
Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief
Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate
Counsel. Argument by Mr. Alden.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney
General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General;
Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General;
James B. Peters, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr.
BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.
Kale J. Hurley appeals his conviction for felonious
restraint. He contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it failed to instruct the jury on the
definition of "bodily injury, " and that there was
insufficient evidence to establish that the unlawful
restraint exposed the victim to a risk of serious bodily
injury. We affirm.
We rephrase the issues as follows:
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it
refused to instruct the jury on the definition of
2. Was there sufficient evidence to establish the elements of
Kadeen Bingham, the victim in this case, stole a ring from
Mr. Hurley. When Mr. Hurley discovered the ring was missing,
he contacted Jeremiah Maes, a mutual friend, and offered Mr.
Maes $500 to set up a meeting between Mr. Hurley and Mr.
Bingham so that Mr. Hurley could recover the stolen ring. Mr.
Maes arranged for the meeting to take place in his room at
the Arrowhead Motel in Gillette, Wyoming.
On April 9, 2015, Mr. Bingham, Jaime Gentry, and Steven
Miller went to the motel room, and a short time later Mr.
Hurley and two unidentified men arrived. According to Mr.
Bingham, Mr. Hurley directed one of his associates to lock
the motel room door and remain in front of it, while Mr.
Hurley and the other man approached Mr. Bingham. Mr. Bingham
stated that he did not believe he was free to leave because
the door was locked and one of Mr. Hurley's associates
was preventing anyone from leaving by standing in front of
the door. After Mr. Bingham told Mr. Hurley that he did not
have the ring, Mr. Hurley and the other man beat Mr. Bingham
for thirty to forty-five minutes.
When Mr. Hurley left the motel room, Ms. Gentry ran out of
the room to the motel office and asked the manager on duty to
call the police. Officer Stroup of the Gillette Police
Department responded to the emergency dispatch call and found
Mr. Bingham in the motel room. Officer Stroup testified that
Mr. Bingham had been severely beaten, "most of his body
was flush red . . . abrasions [on] his shoulders and chest .
. . a large  hematoma underneath his left eye . . . [and]
lumps along his lower jaw. Mr. Bingham declined medical
treatment. Unfortunately for Mr. Bingham, he had an
outstanding warrant and Office Stroup took him into custody.
Mr. Hurley was later arrested and charged with two
counts of felonious restraint in violation of
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-202(a)(i).
At trial, Mr. Hurley requested that an instruction on false
imprisonment and an instruction on the statutory definition
of "bodily injury" as defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 6-1-104(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2017) be given. Mr. Hurley
argued that false imprisonment was a lesser included offense
of felonious restraint so it should be included, and that,
[w]hile there is a question of risk, there is also a question
of serious bodily injury, and giving the jury the opportunity
to look at [the definition of "bodily injury, " and
"serious bodily injury"] will allow them to be able
to make a better determination as to what element these facts
The district court allowed the instruction on false
imprisonment, but denied the instruction defining
"bodily injury." The jury returned a guilty verdict
on one count of felonious restraint, and the district court
sentenced Mr. Hurley to incarceration for a period of not
less than fifteen months nor more than forty-eight months.
This appeal followed.
Mr. Hurley contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on the term
"bodily injury" because without an instruction on
"bodily injury, " the jury was unable to
differentiate between "bodily injury" and
"serious bodily injury;" and the instruction was a
theory of his defense. Mr. Hurley further argues that there
was insufficient evidence to prove he committed the crime of
felonious restraint because the unlawful restraint, the
locking of the motel room door, was not what exposed Mr.
Bingham to serious bodily injury. We find that the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the
proposed instruction on "bodily injury, " and that
there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Hurley of
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it
refused to instruct the jury on the definition of
"We review a district court's decision on jury
instructions for an abuse of discretion." Tingey v.
State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 40, 387 P.3d 1170, 1181 (Wyo.
2017). District courts have "wide latitude in
instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions
correctly state the law and the entire charge covers the
relevant issue, reversible error will not be found."
Dennis v. State, 2013 WY 67, ¶ 36, 302 P.3d
890, 897 (Wyo. 2013) (citations omitted). An incorrect ruling
on an instruction must be prejudicial to constitute
reversible error. Dougherty v. State, 2016 WY 62,
¶ 11, 373 P.3d 427, 431 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Brown v.
State, 2015 WY 4, ¶ 40, 340 P.3d 1020, 1031 (Wyo.
2015)). "Because the purpose of jury instructions is to
provide guidance on the applicable law, prejudice will result
when the instructions confuse or mislead the jury."
The district court instructed the jury that:
The elements of the crime of Felonious Restraint, as charged