Can defendants challenge approved jury instructions on appeal? State v. Malaga Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Malaga addressed the challenging intersection of invited error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and appellate review of jury instructions. This case provides important guidance for practitioners on the limited circumstances under which defendants can challenge jury instructions they previously approved.

Background and Facts

Darius Malaga was convicted of murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit murder following a violent scheme intended to assault and kill Keith Williams. During the attack, Williams escaped from his vehicle’s trunk, but Amy Tavey was shot and killed by the Jordan River. At trial, defense counsel affirmatively approved all jury instructions without objection. On appeal, Malaga challenged multiple aspects of these instructions.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether defendants who affirmatively approve jury instructions can later challenge them on appeal. Malaga argued the court should review alleged errors under plain error, exceptional circumstances, or ineffective assistance of counsel doctrines. He specifically challenged instructions regarding reasonable doubt, accomplice liability, murder elements, conspiracy, witness credibility, and murder causation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals rejected plain error review because the invited error doctrine precluded examining purported errors when counsel affirmatively approved the instructions. The court also declined to apply the exceptional circumstances doctrine, which requires “truly exceptional situations involving rare procedural anomalies.” Instead, the court analyzed Malaga’s claims solely under the ineffective assistance standard, requiring proof that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient and that absent the deficient conduct, the outcome would likely have been more favorable.

Applying this standard, the court found no prejudice because the challenged instructions were either legally correct or “superfluous and not the basis of the jury’s verdict.” For example, accomplice liability instructions were included only for a co-defendant, not for Malaga who was prosecuted as a principal. Similarly, other alleged errors either benefited the defendant by adding elements or were tailored appropriately to the evidence presented.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of preserving objections to jury instructions at trial. Once counsel affirmatively approves instructions, appellate options become severely limited. The invited error doctrine creates a nearly insurmountable barrier to plain error review, leaving only ineffective assistance claims that require demonstrating both deficient performance and prejudice—a difficult standard when instructions are legally sound or irrelevant to the defendant’s theory of prosecution.