Facts:
This includes summary statements of facts based on those stated by the Utah Court of Appeals:
Daniel Lee Johnson and his friend, Chris, had an argument about a winning gambling ticket.
Later that evening, Chris arrived at Johnson’s home, demanding to talk. Johnson refused, but Chris continued banging on the door, shouting aggressively, and scaring Johnson and his children.
Johnson retrieved a pistol, intending to scare Chris away.
As Johnson opened the door, Chris allegedly moved aggressively toward him, and Johnson’s gun discharged, shooting Chris in the face.
Johnson panicked, moved the body to another location, and initially denied involvement when questioned by the police.
At trial, Johnson claimed the shooting was an accident and requested jury instructions on perfect and imperfect self-defense. The trial court denied the request, reasoning that the evidence did not establish an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The jury convicted Johnson of murder and other related charges.
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s request for a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense?
Rule:
Under Utah law, self-defense (Utah Code § 76-2-402) allows the use of deadly force if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury (reasonable belief Standard).
Imperfect self-defense applies when a person reasonably but mistakenly believes deadly force is justified.
A court must give a jury instruction on an affirmative defense if there is any reasonable basis for a jury to conclude the defense applies (State v. Low, 2008 UT 58).
If a court refuses to provide the instruction where warranted, it is considered an error of law and an abuse of discretion (State v. Berriel, 2013 UT 19).
Application:
The district court applied the wrong standard by determining that Johnson’s belief in the need for deadly force was unreasonable rather than assessing whether any evidence supported an instruction.
Evidence from Johnson, his son, and others indicated that:
- Chris was aggressive, banging on the door, and scaring the children.
- Johnson feared for his safety and wanted to scare Chris away.
- Chris may have moved toward Johnson before the gun discharged.
The appellate court found that this evidence could support a claim of imperfect self-defense, and the jury should have been allowed to consider it.
The failure to provide the jury instruction was harmful because it deprived Johnson of a potential defense that could have resulted in a lesser charge.
Conclusion:
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed Johnson’s murder conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense.