Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants claim self-defense against police officers in Utah? State v. Alonzo Explained
Summary
Francisco Alonzo and Miguel Alonzo-Nolasco were convicted by jury of assaulting police officers who arrested them after they fell asleep intoxicated in an apartment hallway. They challenged the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself after allegedly biased comments, evidentiary rulings, and refusal to give self-defense jury instructions.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about judicial recusal and self-defense against police officers in State v. Alonzo, a case involving defendants who were arrested after falling asleep intoxicated in an apartment hallway and subsequently charged with assaulting police officers.
Background and Facts
Francisco Alonzo and Miguel Alonzo-Nolasco fell asleep in an apartment hallway after drinking wine coolers and being locked out. When Salt Lake City police officers responded to a call about people who had “passed out,” a struggle ensued during the arrest. The defendants were ultimately convicted by jury of assault on a police officer under Utah Code § 76-5-102.4, with Miguel also convicted of interfering with an arrest.
Key Legal Issues
The defendants raised multiple challenges: (1) the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself after allegedly making biased statements suggesting defendants should waive jury trial because he would find them guilty; (2) improper judicial comments on evidence; (3) exclusion of character evidence; and (4) refusal to give self-defense jury instructions based on Utah Code §§ 76-2-401 and 76-2-402.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Regarding judicial recusal, the court applied State v. Neeley, holding that absent actual bias or abuse of discretion, failure to recuse does not constitute reversible error if Rule 29 requirements are met. The trial judge had properly certified the bias allegations to another judge who found insufficient cause for disqualification. Even if an appearance of bias existed, defendants failed to show actual prejudice.
On the critical self-defense issue, the court relied on State v. Gardiner and Salt Lake City v. Smoot to hold that statutory justification defenses do not apply to resist arrest charges. The court emphasized that Utah Code § 76-5-102.4 requires the officer to be acting “within the scope of authority,” and legislative silence regarding peace officers in justification statutes indicates an intention to exclude them from such defenses.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that defendants cannot invoke general self-defense statutes when charged with assaulting police officers, even when claiming excessive force. The narrow exception requires showing officers acted “wholly outside the scope of authority.” For judicial bias issues, practitioners must create a complete record and pursue immediate Rule 29 procedures, as appellate courts focus on actual bias rather than appearance when Rule 29 has been followed.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Alonzo
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 960048-CA
Date Decided
January 9, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A trial judge’s failure to recuse himself does not constitute reversible error absent a showing of actual bias or actual prejudice, and statutory self-defense justifications do not apply to resist arrest charges against peace officers acting within the scope of their authority.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law; abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings under Rule 403; correctness for jury instruction refusal
Practice Tip
When moving for judicial recusal based on bias, ensure you create a complete record of the judge’s alleged statements and seek immediate review under Rule 29(d), as later appellate review focuses on actual bias rather than appearance of bias.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.