## Facts

- E. Ben Tatman sued Gary L. Cordingly for assault and battery arising from a June 1, 1982 altercation in rural Albany County, Wyoming, far from town.
- Tatman was 66 years old; Cordingly was in his early 20s.
- No one witnessed the fight other than Tatman and Cordingly, and each claimed the other was the aggressor.
- Tatman suffered severe injuries, was hospitalized for eight days, and incurred substantial medical expenses; Cordingly suffered little or no injury.
- Evidence permitted a finding that Tatman initiated the confrontation, including striking first and escalating the encounter.
- Evidence also permitted a finding that Tatman attempted to access a rifle from his truck, causing Cordingly to fear serious bodily harm or death and to use force to protect himself.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Cordingly acted in reasonable self-defense.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Tatman’s proposed “mutual fight” jury instructions and related verdict form asserting each participant is liable for injuries he inflicts.
3. Whether the self-defense instructions and verdict form, considered as a whole, adequately stated the reasonable-belief and reasonable-force limits on self-defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the judgment for Cordingly.
- The court held the evidence, viewed favorably to the prevailing party, was sufficient for a rational jury to find reasonable self-defense.
- The court held the trial court properly refused Tatman’s proposed mutual-fight instruction and special verdict form because they did not accurately state governing law.
- The court held that any arguable incompleteness in a single self-defense instruction was harmless when the charge as a whole required reasonable belief, proportional force, and termination of the privilege once danger passed.
- The court held the verdict form was not erroneous because it allowed the jury to determine the aggressor and assess whether self-defense applied within its limits.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a jury verdict, the appellate court accepts the prevailing party’s evidence as true, draws all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, and does not reweigh credibility.
- A civil battery may be privileged by self-defense when the defendant reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent an imminent battery and uses no more force than reasonably necessary.
- The privilege of self-defense ends when the assailant is disarmed or the danger has passed; continued force after that point is not justified.
- “Mutual fight” liability principles require mutual consent to fight; a fight is not “mutual” merely because both parties used force during the encounter.
- Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole; an imperfection in one instruction does not require reversal if the full charge correctly states the law and adequately guides deliberations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict because the record permitted the jury to find that Tatman was the aggressor and that Cordingly reasonably used proportionate force in self-defense, and because the trial court correctly rejected an inaccurate mutual-combat theory while giving instructions that, taken together, properly limited self-defense to reasonable and necessary force that ends when the danger ends.


Tatman v. Cordingly, 672 P.2d 1286 (Wyo. 1983)