State v. Johnson
2017 UT 76
| Utah | 2017Background
- Michael Johnson was convicted of murder; at trial he submitted a jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of homicide by assault and the trial court said it would use the instruction.
- The signed verdict form in the record did not list the lesser offense; on remand the trial court said it recalled sending a separate lesser-offense verdict form with the jury but could not locate it.
- On appeal Johnson challenged the missing verdict form and a causation instruction; the Utah Court of Appeals sua sponte asked for briefing on whether the homicide-by-assault instruction itself misstated the mens rea.
- The Court of Appeals reversed based on that instruction error, despite acknowledging Johnson had not preserved an objection and likely invited the instruction.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether exceptional circumstances permit appellate review of an issue neither preserved at trial nor raised on appeal, and whether Robison broadened that doctrine.
- The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals erred: no exceptional-circumstances exception applied, invited-error and preservation/waiver rules bar review, and the case was remanded for consideration of Johnson’s other briefed claims.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may sua sponte decide an issue not preserved at trial and not raised on appeal under the exceptional‑circumstances doctrine | Court of Appeals: Robison allows reaching unpreserved issues in exceptional situations; supplemental briefing suffices | Johnson: Issue was not preserved and was likely invited by defense; preservation/waiver rules bar review | Held: Exceptional‑circumstances exception does not authorize review here; court of appeals erred in reaching the unpreserved, unbriefed claim |
| Whether Robison expanded exceptional‑circumstances to permit appellate initiation of new claims of error | Court of Appeals panel majority read Robison expansively to permit sua sponte review with supplemental briefing | Johnson: Robison does not obviate preservation or the invited‑error rule | Held: Robison did not expand the doctrine; distinction between unpreserved issues and waived issues clarified; Robison cannot be read to justify this reversal |
| Whether any other preservation exception applied (plain error or ineffective assistance) to permit review of the instruction | Johnson suggested the instruction was erroneous and warranted reversal | State argued invited‑error, no ineffective‑assistance claim was raised | Held: Invited‑error doctrine bars plain‑error review because defendant submitted the instruction; ineffective‑assistance was not raised and thus not considered; exceptional‑circumstances standard requires a rare procedural anomaly absent here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robison, 147 P.3d 448 (Utah 2006) (limits sua sponte appellate intervention; Court clarifies scope and disavows expansive reading)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (plain‑error test and preservation principles)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 266 P.3d 828 (Utah 2011) (preservation/waiver doctrines and adversary‑system rationale)
- State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987) (distinguishes plain error from exceptional circumstances; rare procedural anomaly concept)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Adoption of K.A.S., 390 P.3d 278 (Utah 2016) (illustrates exceptional circumstances where appointed counsel’s abdication justified appellate review)