Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court of Appeals weighs defense-of-habitation instruction in Young appeal
Summary
In State v. Young, the Court of Appeals heard competing arguments about whether a homeowner was entitled to a jury instruction on defense of habitation after a confrontation at his door; the panel focused on whether the record showed an imminent or attempted entry and whether nonforce alternatives made force unnecessary.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Young over whether a trial court erred by refusing a defense'of'habitation instruction after a confrontation between homeowner Mark Young and a visitor at Young's door.
Benjamin Miller, counsel for Young, told the court his client "felt threatened by a stranger" who appeared at his door, refused to leave and gave inconsistent identifying information; Miller argued that, viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, a jury could reasonably conclude Young acted to prevent an imminent unlawful entry and therefore should have received the defensive-habitation instruction.
The State's attorney, Joshua Prince, countered that the record lacked evidence of an attempted or imminent entry into the habitation and that the mere presence on the property or misrepresentations about identity do not by themselves establish a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent entry. Prince urged the court to apply the statutory text and precedent requiring objective reasonableness tied to an imminent threat.
Judges pressed both sides about the meaning of "necessary" in the statute and whether nonforce alternatives (locking the door, calling police, or confirming identity through the door or by phone) would render force unnecessary. Counsel for Young said his client asked the visitor to leave, made a phone call that did not confirm identity, and then emerged with a gun only after his concern escalated; Miller argued those facts created a classic jury question about reasonableness. The State emphasized that the record did not show an attempt to enter the home and that brandishing a firearm where no imminent entry occurred cannot justify the instruction.
The court also discussed whether merely displaying or carrying a firearm short of pointing it could qualify as a "show of force" under aggravated-assault law, a factual matter the panel said might have influenced the jury's verdict but which did not resolve the instruction question.
The panel took the case under advisement and said it would issue a written opinion resolving whether the trial court should have submitted a habitation instruction to the jury.
What happens next: The Court of Appeals will issue a written decision addressing whether the trial court erred in refusing the defense-of-habitation instruction and whether that error, if any, requires reversal.
