Summary
The Utah Court of Appeals held that Marc Perry Young was entitled to a jury instruction on the baseline defense of habitation because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, could support a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into his home. The court reversed Young’s aggravated-assault conviction on that ground. It rejected Young’s ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to request a self-defense instruction because the evidence did not entitle him to such an instruction.
Holdings
- A criminal defendant is entitled to an affirmative-defense jury instruction when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, provides any reasonable basis for the jury to find that the defense applies. Under Young's version of the evidence, a jury could reasonably find the elements of the baseline defense of habitation because he reasonably believed that an apparent trespasser was refusing to leave and that holding the shotgun was necessary to prevent an unlawful entry into his house.
- The district court's refusal to give the baseline defense-of-habitation instruction was prejudicial because there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have reached a different result if it had been permitted to consider whether Young's conduct was justified.
- Young was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because, even viewing the evidence favorably to him, there was no evidentiary basis for finding that he reasonably believed Contractor was about to use unlawful force imminently. Counsel therefore did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request the instruction.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the baseline defense of habitation under Utah Code section 76-2-405.
- Whether the refusal to give the defense-of-habitation instruction prejudiced Young.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to separately request a self-defense instruction.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (15)
- State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, n.1, 525 P.3d 550(followed)
- State v. Farmer, 2025 UT App 57, ¶¶ 41, 54, 569 P.3d 267(followed)
- State v. Hunt, 2025 UT 54, ¶ 46, 582 P.3d 772(followed)
- State v. Johnson, 2025 UT App 13, ¶¶ 24, 30-32, 564 P.3d 519(followed)
- State v. Devan, 2024 UT App 193, ¶ 54, 562 P.3d 1233(followed)
- Keisel v. Westbrook, 2023 UT App 163, ¶ 52 n.9, 542 P.3d 536(followed)
- State v. Thompson, 2014 UT App 14, ¶ 73, 318 P.3d 1221(followed)
- State v. Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 40, 349 P.3d 712(followed)
- State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 49, 416 P.3d 1132(followed)
- State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24, ¶¶ 27-28, 484 P.3d 415(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…