462 P.3d 409
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- On June 20, 2018, after a family dispute, 19‑year‑old Robert Sorbonne and his younger sister left the family property; their father chased them, pulled ahead, and forced them to stop on a dirt road.
- The father exited his vehicle and approached; Sorbonne opened his car, retrieved a handgun, chambered a round, pointed it at his father, and said, "I'm going to fuckin' kill you." The father asked him to put the gun down, called police, then retreated; Sorbonne later surrendered at a police checkpoint.
- The State charged Sorbonne with threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel (class A misdemeanor). He asserted self‑defense at a bench trial, pointing to the father’s alleged history of violence.
- The defense introduced some of the father’s admissions of past violence, but the district court excluded other testimony (grandmother on road‑rage incidents, older sister on being hit/strangled, and a withdrawn DCFS question) after objections.
- The district court found Sorbonne guilty, concluding his threat/use of the gun was not necessary or reasonable. On appeal he argued (1) the court used the wrong self‑defense standard (deadly vs. non‑deadly), (2) the court erred by excluding prior‑act evidence, and (3) the court misapplied the reasonableness standard.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it declined to decide whether pointing a gun is necessarily "deadly force" because the court below found the conduct unreasonable under either standard; it upheld the evidentiary exclusions; and it affirmed application of an objective reasonableness standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pointing a gun is "use of force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury" (deadly force) or a threat of non‑deadly force | Sorbonne: pointing the gun was a threat (non‑deadly) so the lower, §76‑2‑402(2)(a) standard should apply | State: holding someone at gunpoint is use of deadly force, so §76‑2‑402(2)(b) applies | Court declined to decide classification; affirmed because district court found conduct unreasonable under either standard |
| Whether the court abused discretion by excluding testimony about father’s prior violent acts (grandmother, older sister, DCFS) | Sorbonne: prior acts were admissible under §76‑2‑402(5) to show the reasonableness of his fear and first‑aggressor status | State: testimony was inadmissible (hearsay, relevance, or barred by Rule 404 limitations) | Affirmed: DCFS question was withdrawn (no ruling); other specific‑act testimony was properly evaluated under Rules 404/404(b) and relevance—record does not show abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court erred by applying an objective rather than a subjective or modified objective reasonableness standard for self‑defense | Sorbonne: courts should adopt a subjective or modified objective standard (especially in domestic‑violence contexts) | State: objective reasonableness is the controlling standard under Utah law | Affirmed: Court follows this panel and Utah Supreme Court precedent holding an objective standard governs reasonableness in self‑defense claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robertson, 438 P.3d 491 (Utah 2017) (statutory interpretation standard for reviewing legal questions)
- State v. Walker, 358 P.3d 1120 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (limits on admission of victim’s violent character evidence under §76‑2‑402(5) and the Rules of Evidence)
- State v. Sherard, 818 P.2d 554 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (holding that "reasonable" in Utah self‑defense law means objectively reasonable)
- State v. Berriel, 299 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2013) (Utah Supreme Court applied objective reasonableness in self‑defense jury‑instruction context)
- State v. Campos, 309 P.3d 1160 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (rule 404(a) limits: reputation/opinion evidence, not specific‑act testimony, to prove propensity)