State v. Liti, 355 P.3d 1078

During an altercation over a borrowed car, Rodney Amato Liti drew a handgun; the gun discharged and his friend (Victim) died. Liti testified the shooting was accidental or in self-defense; the State argued it was intentional.
Trial included instructions allowing conviction for manslaughter if the jury found either imperfect self-defense or that Liti acted recklessly.
The jury convicted Liti of manslaughter and of possession of a firearm by a restricted person, finding he was an unlawful user/possessor of controlled substances (Category II factual finding submitted to jury).
The trial court, relying on evidence presented to the court (but not the jury), found Liti was a Category I restricted person (prior felony probation) and entered the firearm-possession conviction as a second-degree felony.
Liti appealed, challenging (1) the jury instruction defining “recklessly” (omitting the statutory “gross deviation” element) and (2) the trial court’s post-verdict finding that he was a Category I restricted person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction correctly defined “recklessly” for manslaughter	Instruction was sufficient because conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk inherently captures culpability	Instruction omitted the statutory requirement that the disregard be a “gross deviation” from ordinary care; thus it omitted an element	The instruction was legally incorrect for omitting the “gross deviation” element; conviction reversed and new trial ordered on homicide charge
Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to the instruction was ineffective assistance	No prejudice; counsel reasonably focused on self-defense strategy	Failure to object was deficient because the instruction omitted an element; prejudice is reasonably likely because jury may have relied on recklessness	Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced Liti; ineffective assistance; supports reversal of manslaughter conviction
Whether the trial court could find Liti was Category I (enhancing felony degree) without jury finding	Court may consider probation evidence at sentencing to determine felony status	Finding prior-felony status is an element that must be submitted to and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt	Trial court erred; prior-felony status is an element for the jury; Category I finding vacated and conviction entered as Category II (third-degree felony)

State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (review of facts in light most favorable to jury verdict)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury must find every element of an offense)
United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (U.S. 2010) (elements must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Chavez, 605 P.2d 1226 (Utah 1979) (criminal-negligence statute requires proof of gross deviation element)
State v. Standiford, 769 P.2d 254 (Utah 1988) (both recklessness and criminal negligence require a gross deviation from reasonable-person standard)
State v. Higginbotham, 917 P.2d 545 (Utah 1996) (possession offense requires a finding that defendant is a restricted person)