Court of Appeals hears challenge to denial of self‑defense instruction in State v. Daniel Johnson

Summary

At oral argument the appellant said the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a self‑defense jury instruction; the state countered the record showed only a slight, inconsistent basis for self‑defense and argued the claim was effectively an accident theory. The court took the matter under advisement.

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal in State of Utah v. Daniel Johnson on Dec. 2, where defense counsel argued the trial court erred by declining to give a requested jury instruction on self defense. Appellant counsel Rachel Phillips told the court the Utah standard for presenting an affirmative defense is a low threshold and that the trial record contained at least a minimal reasonable basis to warrant the instruction.

Why it matters: the dispute turns on when and how an appellate court should require a trial judge to present a self‑defense instruction to a jury. If the Court of Appeals finds the district court applied the wrong standard, it could affect how future Utah juries are instructed in cases where defendants advance alternative theories (for example, accident…

Court of Appeals hears challenge to denial of self‑defense instruction in State v. Daniel Johnson

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading