364 P.3d 49
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Adam Karr appeals his murder and obstruction convictions arising from a party fight at a residence shared with his brother.
- Victim arrived as a guest, became belligerent, and threatened Brother after being asked to leave; Victim retrieved liquor later.
- A fight occurred outside the dwelling during which Brother restrained Victim while Karr stabbed Victim seven times, leading to Victim's death.
- Karr’s trial defense relied on the defense of habitation under Utah Code § 76-2-405; jury was instructed on this defense.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts; Karr challenges the accuracy of Instruction 86, which pertained to the presumption of reasonableness.
- The court held Instruction 86 technically incorrect but harmless; affirming Karr’s convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Instruction 86 improperly undermined the presumption of reasonableness | Karr argues presumption was undermined by focusing on Victim's entry purpose | Karr contends State could only rebut with unreasonable belief, not lawful entry | Instruction 86 harmless error; presumption not prejudicial |
| Whether the State properly rebutted the presumption under § 76-2-405(2) | State must show Karr’s belief was unreasonable to rebut the presumption | State can rely on Victim’s entry not being for assault or felony or on Karr’s unreasonableness | State’s method valid; beliefs and actions properly examined; harmless overall |
| Whether the court properly applied the defense of habitation and its elements | Defense relies on unlawful entry and force used to prevent entry or assault | Statutory structure is complex but supports presumption and defense when triggered | Court’s interpretation upheld; no reversible error in applying the defense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moritzsky, 771 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (presumption applies to reasonable beliefs/actions after unlawful entry)
- State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327 (Utah 1993) (harmless-error standard for jury instructions)
- Green v. Louder, 29 P.3d 638 (Utah 2001) (instruction error must be consistent with evidence present)
- Patrick, 217 P.3d 1150 (Utah App. 2009) (defense of habitation considered an affirmative defense)
- State v. DeAlo, 748 P.2d 194 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (superfluous instruction deemed harmless)
- State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1988) (cumulative error doctrine applied to harmless errors)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (reviewing prejudice in verdicts when errors present)