Utah Supreme Court considers whether a proffered self‑defense claim suffices at a pretrial justification hearing

Summary

At oral argument, defense counsel said a prima facie self‑defense claim may be met by a proffer of facts assumed true; the State countered that the statute and precedent require some evidentiary showing and that death resulting from force may place the case in the lethal‑force category. The court took the case under advisement.

SALT LAKE CITY — During oral argument, the Utah Supreme Court weighed whether a defendant seeking a pretrial justification hearing must do more than allege self‑defense in a motion and proffer, or whether that proffer is treated as true for the prima facie stage and only later subject to the State’s clear‑and‑convincing rebuttal.

Eric Grange, counsel for the petitioner, told the justices that "a prima facie claim does not require a burden of proof and can be met by a proffer of facts" and pointed to record proffers and an Instagram message where the defendant said the other person "attacked him first." Grange argued the nonlethal or "regular force" subsection applies here because the defendant did not know he was using deadly force when he struck the other person.

The State's attorney disputed that the proffer alone should carry a defendant past the prima facie threshold without some indicia of the defendant's subjective…

Utah Supreme Court considers whether a proffered self‑defense claim suffices at a pretrial justification hearing

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading