Can defendants challenge jury instructions they agreed to at trial? State v. Bolson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Bolson addressed whether a criminal defendant can challenge a jury instruction on appeal after affirmatively agreeing to that instruction at trial. The court’s analysis provides important guidance for defense counsel regarding preservation of error and the limits of appellate review.

Background and Facts

Defendant Renae Reid Bolson was convicted of multiple counts of securities fraud, selling an unregistered security, and pattern of unlawful activity in connection with an elaborate Ponzi scheme. The scheme involved encouraging investors to deposit mortgage proceeds into an escrow account with promises of high returns and mortgage payment coverage. Bolson served as a contact person for the program and continued soliciting new investors even after becoming aware of payment problems affecting earlier investors. On appeal, she challenged the trial court’s jury instruction defining “willfully” in the context of securities fraud.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Bolson could challenge the jury instruction on willfulness under the manifest injustice doctrine despite having affirmatively agreed to the instruction at trial. Secondary issues included whether sufficient evidence supported her convictions for securities fraud and selling unregistered securities.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that when defense counsel not only fails to object to a jury instruction but affirmatively stipulates to it, appellate courts cannot review the instruction’s propriety even under the manifest injustice exception. The court explained that “a party cannot take advantage of an error committed at trial when that party led the trial court into committing the error.” Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court found that reasonable minds could conclude Bolson acted willfully by soliciting new investors while knowing of payment problems and failing to disclose those problems.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of careful review before agreeing to proposed jury instructions. Defense counsel must thoroughly analyze all instructions before stipulating, as affirmative agreement waives appellate review rights entirely. The ruling also demonstrates how knowledge of material facts combined with failure to disclose can establish the willfulness element in securities fraud cases, even when the defendant claims mere negligence or poor judgment.