State v. McDonald (2025 UT App 127)

Posted by Stone River Criminal Defense Team

Last Updated: October 17, 2025

The Utah Court of Appeals has thrown out an aggravated assault conviction after finding that the defense attorney gave jurors the wrong definition of the word “likely.” This mistake confused the jury and lowered the State’s burden of proof.
attorney meeting with client at desk

The decision highlights how one word can change the outcome of a criminal case.

Facts of the Case

Seventeen-year-old Elijah McDonald went with his mother to confront his runaway brother at a Salt Lake City home. A heated argument broke out in front of the house. During the chaos, an adult man named Stan—about 5’7″ and more than 200 pounds—stepped in to calm things down.

McDonald, who was 5’3″ and about 125 pounds, threw a single punch that broke Stan’s jaw. The State charged McDonald with aggravated assault, claiming his punch used force “likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.”

A jury convicted McDonald. He appealed.

Issue on Appeal

The mistake didn’t go unnoticed. During deliberations, jurors sent a note to the judge asking, “How much weight do we put on the word likely?”

That question showed exactly what went wrong. The defense lawyer’s argument had left the jury uncertain about a key part of the law. The trial judge’s response didn’t clear it up, and twenty minutes later, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

The appeals court found that the error mattered. Given the size difference between McDonald and Stan, and the fact that the case turned on how “likely” the injury was, the jury might have reached a different result if they had understood the term correctly.

The Court’s Decision

Judge John D. Luthy, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that McDonald’s lawyer performed deficiently and that the mistake prejudiced the defense.

“To say that ‘likely’ has a range of meaning that includes a probability as low as 50.1% is a misstatement of the law,” the court wrote.

Because of that error, the Utah Court of Appeals vacated the conviction and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a strong reminder that precise language matters in criminal trials. A single misstatement can change how jurors interpret the law—and whether they find someone guilty or not.

Effective criminal defense requires not only strong advocacy but also accuracy. When an attorney’s error confuses the jury about a key legal term, a conviction may not stand.

For defendants facing assault charges in Utah, this case reinforces the importance of having experienced counsel who understands both the law and how juries interpret it.

Originally Published: October 17, 2025

How can we help you?

Call us at 801-448-7451, or use this contact form.

    Related Articles

    Cedar City v. McCraw (2025 UT App 123)
    The Utah Appeals Court has recently released an opinion vacating Criminal Mischief and Domestic Violence convictions for Jennifer McCraw based on...
    October 17, 2025
    Red-Collar Crime: When White-Collar Criminals Turn Violent
    "Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
    October 10, 2025
    Blue-Collar Crime: Direct and Detectable
    “It’s about your breaking point. Everyone has one. You can be pushed so far before you break before you react and lash out.” — John Macken
    October 10, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?