Facts of the Case
Johnson and Chris were friends who regularly hung out at Johnson’s residence. One night Chris came to Johnson’s house, angered over a dispute with Johnson involving lottery tickets. Johnson’s son informed Chris that his father did not want to talk to him, and told Chris to leave. Chris refused and became very angry, screaming and pounding on the side of the house. Johnson had never seen Chris behave this way, and picked up his pistol before going to the door. According to Johnson, when Chris saw the gun in his hand Chris slammed the screen door in Johnson’s face. Johnson attempted to block the door with the hand he held the pistol in, however the gun went off and Chris fell backwards.
Shortly after the shooting and during the subsequent police investigation Johnson made multiple statements about what happened. Johnson told a neighbor he killed a man who was threatening his children. Johnson initially told police he was not involved in the shooting but later admitted he had shot Chris as an accident while protecting his kids. In a CJC interview Johnson’s children related Chris’s angry behavior outside the house and stated that Chris had lunged at their father before being shot.
After being charged with murder, Johnson’s case went to a jury trial. Johnson requested the jury be instructed on both perfect and imperfect self-defense, however the district court declined this request, and Johnson was convicted as charged.
Issue
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the district court exceeded their discretion by denying Johnson’s request for a jury instruction in self-defense. Did Chris’s actions rise to the level of an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury, justifying Johnson’s use of force?
Analysis
Utah precedent requires that when a criminal defendant requests a jury instruction for an affirmative defense, the court must give that instruction if evidence has been presented providing any reasonable basis for a jury to rule that the defense applies to the defendant. It is the duty of the jury, not the court, to determine whether the defendant’s actions then satisfy perfect or imperfect self-defense.
Several factors are in Johnson’s favor that a reasonable basis existed for a jury to consider the applicability of self-defense. During the CJC interview Johnson’s son repeatedly stated that Chris had lunged to attack or punch his father prior to the gun going off. Johnson also testified that Chris’s behavior was unusual and scared him for the safety of his children and himself.
Even if a determination is made that the jury ought to have been instructed on self-defense, the Court will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless it can be shown that their error was in fact harmful. At trial Johnson primarily relied on the defense that the shooting was accidental, and that he did not intentionally pull the gun’s trigger. While the jury rejected that defense, had they been instructed on self-defense the jury would have been required to determine if the shooting was nonetheless warranted. Testimony from Johnson and his children indicate that Johnson himself had at least a subjective belief that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court exceeded their discretion by declining Johnson’s request for jury instructions on imperfect self-defense. A reasonable basis existed for the instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed Johnson’s conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.