Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Evin Devan's conviction for aggravated assault following a physical altercation over a disputed sale of CBD gummies. On appeal, Devan argued that the trial court improperly refused his proposed 'actual-danger' jury instruction on self-defense and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to request other instructions. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the given instructions, read as a whole, fairly and correctly instructed the jury on the reasonableness standard for self-defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give Devan's proposed Actual-Danger Instruction concerning apparent danger and self-defense.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a lesser-included-offense instruction on misdemeanor assault.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction defining the term aggressor.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an instruction on the defense of habitation.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the proposed instruction because the instructions as a whole adequately conveyed that self-defense turns on the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that force was necessary, even though they did not use the words actual or apparent danger.
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by declining to request a misdemeanor-assault instruction because choosing an all-or-nothing defense was a reasonable strategic decision.
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to request a further definition of aggressor because the term had an ordinary meaning, counsel was able to argue that Steve was the aggressor, and the proposed definition could have harmed Devan's case.
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to request a defense-of-habitation instruction because the evidence did not provide a reasonable basis for the defense, and the statute did not support a preemptive attack at a location other than the habitation.
Key quotations
“When reviewing jury instructions, we look at the jury instructions in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case.” (¶ 30)
“Thus, in a self-defense case, the “ultimate question before the trier of fact remains the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief that force was necessary to defend against another’s imminent use of unlawful force.”” (¶ 33)
“The decision of whether to request a lesser-included offense instruction “is within counsel’s strategic discretion.”” (¶ 42)
Factual background
Devan went to a bar to meet Steve after Steve complained that Devan had sold him CBD gummies instead of THC edibles and demanded his money back. Outside the bar, the two argued, and Devan repeatedly punched Steve and kicked him in the jaw after Steve fell to the ground. Steve suffered a separated jaw, required surgery, had his jaw wired shut for about two months, and sustained permanent nerve damage. Devan admitted the assault but claimed self-defense based on his perception that Steve was about to attack him and might be armed.
Procedural history
The State charged Devan with aggravated assault in the Fourth District Court, Provo Department. After the district court denied Devan's directed-verdict motion, the case was submitted to a jury, which found him guilty. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.