Court of Appeals hears challenge to jury instructions in Carl Johnson manslaughter case

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in the appeal of Carl Johnson, who was convicted of manslaughter after shooting a man identified in the record as Tom. Defense counsel argued the trial court’s jury instructions failed to inform jurors that two distinct affirmative self‑defense doctrines were on the table, and that one instruction’s phrasing effectively required a manslaughter verdict even if perfect self‑defense should have led to acquittal.

Why it matters: If the appellate court agrees that the instructions misled jurors about the legal options available, the manslaughter conviction could be reversed or remanded for new proceedings. The case raises a broader question about how trial courts instruct lay jurors on technical differences in self‑defense law.

Defense argument

Emily Adams, who identified herself as counsel for the appellant, told the panel that the instructions “do not give the jury the information that they need that there were 2 and only 2 distinct affirmative defenses on the table.” Adams said the placement and wording of one instruction — which she described as telling jurors that “the defendant may only be convicted of manslaughter” if the state has not carried its burden — could lead jurors to conclude that manslaughter was the only available alternative to a murder conviction. Adams argued the instructions therefore created a risk that a juror who believed perfect self‑defense applied would nonetheless convict of manslaughter because the instructions and verdict form did not explain that a finding of perfect self‑defense requires acquittal on all charges.

Adams also pressed factual points supporting a self‑defense claim: she said witnesses placed the shooting within a short time of an earlier physical altercation, that a witness (Ernie) testified the victim was moving toward Johnson and that medical personnel recorded Johnson saying, according to Adams, “I was strangled, I almost died, he choked me out, I was about to black out.” Adams argued the positioning of the wound — the victim was shot in the back from a slightly elevated left‑to‑right angle — was consistent with Johnson’s account of being approached on a stairway and fired as the victim advanced.

State response

Karen Kluthnick, arguing for the state, told the panel the instructions “accurately reflect the law” when read together and that defense counsel’s repeated references to “self defense” in opening and closing statements emphasized classic (perfect) self‑defense rather than imperfect self‑defense. She urged the court to presume the jury followed instructions read as a whole, and to reject the defense suggestion that jurors lacked the conceptual framework to distinguish the doctrines.

Panel questioning and legal issues

Judges pressed both sides on the plausibility of perfect self‑defense given the trial evidence (including statements that Johnson left, retrieved a gun and returned) and on whether any instructional error was prejudicial. The panel explored whether the instructions, taken together with counsel’s arguments and the verdict form, could reasonably have led even a single juror to interpret the instructions as Adams described. The court also asked about the role of closing arguments in coloring jurors’ understanding of specialized legal terms.

Outcome and next steps

The panel thanked counsel for briefing and argument and said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion in due course.