State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213

Background

Late-night confrontation in Bluffdale: defendant Reginald Campos confronted neighbor David Serbeck after Serbeck followed Campos’s daughter; both men armed. Serbeck was shot and paralyzed below the chest. Campos was tried and convicted of attempted murder with injury and aggravated assault.
Campos claimed self-defense (including imperfect self-defense); the State argued Campos acted as a vigilante and was not justified.
At trial the jury received correct self-defense instructions, but the verdict form incorrectly asked the jury to find an affirmative defense (imperfect self-defense) "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The prosecutor’s closing argument included (1) appeals to the jury’s sympathy/societal duty and (2) statements accusing the defense of using “red herrings” and misleading the jury. Defense counsel did not object.
Campos’s counsel also declined to request a jury instruction on extreme emotional distress (special mitigation). Defense expert testimony on police training (proffered to justify holding a gun on a second person) was excluded; a request for a lesser-included instruction on threatening with a dangerous weapon was denied.
The Court of Appeals found multiple instances of deficient performance by trial counsel (failure to object to the flawed verdict form and to prosecutorial misconduct), whose cumulative effect undermined confidence in the attempted-murder verdict; the attempted-murder conviction was reversed and the aggravated-assault conviction was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Campos)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an extreme emotional distress (special mitigation) instruction	No instruction required; inconsistent with self-defense strategy	Evidence supported reasonable basis for extreme emotional distress instruction	Trial counsel not ineffective on this ground; choosing imperfect self-defense over a second middle-ground defense was a permissible strategy
Whether the verdict form improperly shifted burden on imperfect self-defense and counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Verdict form was merely unclear, not reversible error	Verdict form required finding the affirmative defense "beyond a reasonable doubt," shifting burden to defendant; counsel should have objected	Verdict form was erroneous; counsel’s failure to object was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial in combination with other errors
Whether prosecutorial closing remarks (appeal to sympathy/societal duty; personal attacks on defense counsel) were improper and whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Arguments were legitimate pleas for justice and critique of defense theory	Remarks were inflammatory, appealed to passion/societal duty, and improperly impugned defense counsel; counsel should have sought curative instruction	Remarks were prosecutorial misconduct; failure to object was deficient performance and contributed to prejudice when viewed cumulatively with verdict-form error
Whether exclusion of defense expert testimony and denial of lesser-included instruction (threatening with a dangerous weapon) were erroneous	Expert testimony not helpful; no rational basis for lesser-included verdict	Expert would show reasonableness of holding gun on a second person; evidence supported lesser-included instruction	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the police-training expert; trial court did not err in refusing the lesser-included instruction; aggravated-assault conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel Strickland standard)
State v. Drej, 233 P.3d 476 (Utah 2010) (discussing burden for imperfect self-defense and instruction standards)
State v. White, 251 P.3d 820 (Utah 2011) (defining extreme emotional distress and timing of triggering events)
State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694 (Utah 1980) (party entitled to instruction when reasonable basis exists in evidence)
State v. Knoll, 712 P.2d 211 (Utah 1985) (affirmative defenses: once threshold shown, prosecution must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)