State v. Wilkinson, 407 P.3d 1045

On March 15, 2014, Wilkinson (defendant) attacked the father of his former roommate (Victim) by charging at him and swinging an electric drill by its power cord, repeatedly striking Victim while shouting threats.
Victim sustained minor injuries (a gash from the drill bit stub and a cut from falling on gravel); attack lasted about five minutes before Wilkinson stopped and was arrested.
Wilkinson was charged with third-degree aggravated assault (felony) based on use of a "dangerous weapon." The defense requested and the court gave a lesser-included instruction for class B misdemeanor assault; the court also instructed on aggravated assault and defined "dangerous weapon" and "serious bodily injury."
After conviction by a jury for aggravated assault, Wilkinson appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of the evidence—specifically that lay testimony could not prove serious bodily injury—and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds: failure to object to the dangerous-weapon instruction as vague, failure to request a class A misdemeanor instruction, and proposing/allowing a class B instruction that omitted a mens rea element.
The district court had denied a directed verdict on the dangerous-weapon element; the jury found Wilkinson acted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and convicted him of aggravated assault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	State: evidence viewed favorably to jury supports conviction.	Wilkinson: lay testimony insufficient to prove serious bodily injury and thus evidence fails.	Not preserved on appeal; claim rejected.
Dangerous-weapon instruction vagueness	State: statute/instruction sufficiently defines "dangerous weapon" as capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.	Wilkinson: definition too broad/vague (e.g., pens could qualify) and violated due process.	Counsel not ineffective for failing to object; definition clear as applied to a swinging drill.
Failure to request class A misdemeanor instruction	State: counsel may choose strategy to minimize exposure; evidence supported only class B at most.	Wilkinson: omission was deficient assistance; intermediate instruction should have been requested.	No deficient performance; trial strategy reasonable and class A not supported by evidence.
Omitted mens rea in class B instruction	State: aggravated-assault instruction properly stated mens rea; jury convicted felony.	Wilkinson: counsel erred in proposing a misdemeanor instruction lacking mens rea, which could invalidate a misdemeanor verdict.	No prejudice because jury convicted aggravated assault; deficient misdemeanor instruction harmless given outcome.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (due-process vagueness standard for penal statutes)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (penal statutes must give fair notice and not encourage arbitrary enforcement)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Myers v. State, 94 P.3d 211 (Utah 2004) (application of Strickland in Utah; prejudice and reasonableness standards)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule and exceptions for appellate review)
State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (declining futile motions is sound trial strategy)