State v. Painter, 339 P.3d 107

Daniel Painter (defendant) was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault (third-degree felony) for violently attacking a neighbor in a shared four-plex, causing serious injuries including a broken jaw and ripped-out hair.
Incident: around 4:00 a.m., neighbor complained about pounding; Painter allegedly picked her up, slammed her into a railing (breaking it), grabbed her hair, shook her, laid her down, jumped on her head, and wiped his feet on her head before entering his apartment.
Painter's trial defense: self-defense—he testified neighbor shoved and scratched him and that he used “controlled force” as a property guard.
At trial, the jury received a separate instruction on self-defense but the elements instruction for aggravated assault did not list the absence of self-defense as an element.
On appeal Painter argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the elements instruction; he conceded a separate correct self-defense instruction was given but contended the two were not reconciled.
The court reviewed the instructions as a whole and considered prior Utah Appellate decisions addressing similar instructional challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Painter)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to an elements instruction that omitted absence of self-defense	Counsel was not ineffective because the jury was correctly instructed on self-defense elsewhere and instructions read together fairly stated the law	Failure to object left an elements instruction that, standing alone, omitted absence of self-defense and could have confused the jury	Counsel not ineffective; instructions taken as a whole fairly instructed the jury and Lee controls
Whether prejudice under Strickland is established by uncertainty over which instruction the jury followed	The State argued Painter cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome given the overwhelming evidence of assault	Painter argued prejudice should be presumed where it’s unclear which instruction governed or how jury was influenced	No prejudice shown; given facts, Painter failed to show reasonable probability of a different result

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (instructions must be read as a whole; affirm when taken together they fairly instruct the jury)
State v. Lee, 318 P.3d 1164 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (holding separate self-defense and elements instructions, read together, can fairly instruct jury; counsel not deficient for failing to object)
State v. Campos, 309 P.3d 1160 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (instructions in direct, irreconcilable conflict can warrant relief; does not eliminate Strickland prejudice requirement)
State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (describing absence of affirmative defenses in context of elements discussion)
State v. Knoll, 712 P.2d 211 (Utah 1985) (discussing whether absence of self-defense is an element)