Appeals panel hears arguments in State v. Mega Ditchian over jury instructions, T‑shirt and body‑cam evidence

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Mega Ditchian over whether the trial court should have given jury instructions on mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication and whether certain evidence and closing‑argument references were prejudicial.

Appellants’ counsel Natalie Scabine told the three‑judge panel the contested instructions were statutory affirmative defenses and that omitting them created a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome: "I think there's a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome if the jury instructions had been provided in this case," she said, arguing intoxication or mistake could have negated the mental states charged for murder, discharge of a firearm and kidnapping.

The State, through counsel Jonathan Bower, urged the panel that the trial record and video evidence undercut the defendant’s theories. Bower told the court the doorbell video and its audio were highly probative: "the audio is incredibly damning to his claim of hearing a gunshot. It is crystal clear audio," he said, emphasizing he could hear two loud gunshots on the recording and arguing subsequent actions by the defendant—checking the scene, handling shell casings and misleading officers—were evidence inconsistent with an incapacity defense.

Why it matters: the dispute turns on whether instructions that expressly label certain defenses as "affirmative" add legal content beyond the usual element‑and‑burden instructions and whether their omission was prejudicial in this factual record. The panel pressed defense counsel to identify specific ways the missing instructions would have changed jurors’ factfinding in this case.

Evidence disputes: judges extensively questioned whether the prosecution’s references to a T‑shirt the defendant wore—an item with wording the defense says was used to argue character—crossed the line into inadmissible character inference. The defense proposed redaction or pretrial motions to limit content; the bench raised a practical concern judges often face: pixelating or hiding text can increase juror curiosity or create its own prejudicial effect. Defense counsel argued the cleanest option would have been to redact text or to avoid introducing the shirt’s content at all; the panel probed whether a timely objection or motion could have halted repeated references in opening, closing and rebuttal.

Body‑camera footage: counsel also debated whether officers’ body‑cam video showing the crash scene, officers performing CPR and a distraught witness was admissible under Rule 403. The defense argued the footage provides immediate geographic and circumstantial context—distances, the car crash location and the absence of certain items in the vehicle—while the bench and the State raised concerns about whether the visuals added contested facts or risked undue emotional impact.

Trial‑strategy and ineffective‑assistance claims: the parties differed on whether trial counsel’s strategic choices—stipulating to show certain footage rather than objecting—were objectively reasonable and whether any deficiency was prejudicial in light of the overall record.

The court’s next step: after approximately 75 minutes of argument the panel submitted the case and told counsel it would issue a decision as soon as practicable.

The appeals argument included extensive bench colloquy on the standard for giving instructional requests, admissibility and the limits of closing argument; no opinion or vote was announced from the bench at argument.