State v. Salt, 347 P.3d 414

Salt convicted of third-degree felony aggravated assault after assaults on J.G. causing severe head injuries.
Trial included self-defense defense; defendant claimed no pottery/pipe blows and that injuries were glancing.
Jury acquitted Salt of aggravated kidnapping and damage to a communication device; convicted of aggravated assault.
Court denied motions to arrest judgment and to reduce conviction; trial court denied new trial.
Appellate court held no error in jury instruction, no improper due to vagueness/overbreadth of Cohabitant Abuse Act, and no ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the aggravated assault instruction omit mens rea element?	Salt contends no intent/knowledge required.	Salt argues O’Bannon requires specific intent to cause serious injury.	No; third-degree aggravated assault does not require specific intent.
Was the sentencing reduction to a class A misdemeanor proper?	Salt seeks 402 reduction due to lack of prior record.	Court acted within discretion; no undue harshness.	Court did not abuse its discretion; no 402 reduction warranted.
Were verdicts conflicting to warrant a new trial?	Aggravated kidnapping acquittal conflicts with aggravated assault conviction.	jury may convict on one count and acquit on another.	No; evidence supports aggravated assault regardless of kidnapping acquittal.
Is the Cohabitant Abuse Act constitutionally overbroad or vague?	Term cohabitant overbroad and vague, chilling association.	statute targets violence, not protected association; notice exists.	Act not overbroad or vague; constitutionality upheld.
Was counsel ineffective for not adding self-defense factor?	Missing factor limited defense emphasis on prior violence.	Jury instruction allowed broader self-defense arguments; prejudice not shown.	No; no reasonable probability of a different outcome.

State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (set forth standard for reviewing evidence in favor of the verdict)
State v. Mangum, 318 P.3d 250 (Utah App. 2013) (no specific intent required when charged under certain aggravated assault subsections)
State v. Potter, 627 P.2d 75 (Utah 1981) (no culpable mental state required for aggravated assault by use of deadly weapon or similar means)
State v. Howell, 554 P.2d 1326 (Utah 1976) (third-degree aggravated assault requires only general intent)
State v. McElhaney, 579 P.2d 328 (Utah 1978) (approved no culpable mental state for aggravated assault by certain means)