Can defendants challenge jury instructions on appeal after waiving objections at trial? State v. Featherhat Explained

In State v. Featherhat, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can challenge jury instructions on appeal after their counsel explicitly waived objections at trial. The case involved serious criminal charges including attempted aggravated murder and aggravated robbery.

Bryan Featherhat shot a police officer during a traffic stop and then forced Christine Tallman at gunpoint to drive him away in her vehicle. After his conviction, Featherhat argued on appeal that various jury instructions were incomplete or incorrect, including instructions on his mental illness defense, the identification of the victim by name, and special mitigation provisions.

The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, establishing an important rule about invited error. When the district court expressly asked if either party had any objection to the proposed jury instructions, Featherhat’s counsel replied, “No, Your Honor.” This clear representation that defense had no objection to the instructions constituted an invitation of any error and precluded challenging the instructions on appeal.

The court emphasized that a defendant cannot challenge jury instructions as plain error or manifest injustice when defense counsel “affirmatively represented to the court that he or she had no objection to the jury instruction.” This rule prevents defendants from strategically remaining silent at trial only to raise instructional errors on appeal.

The court also rejected Featherhat’s other arguments, including challenges to the denial of his suppression motion, sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Notably, the court found sufficient evidence for aggravated robbery both because Featherhat used a dangerous weapon while taking the vehicle and because taking an operable motor vehicle alone constitutes aggravated robbery under Utah law.

This decision reinforces the importance of making specific objections to jury instructions at trial rather than waiving them, as such waivers will generally prevent appellate review even under exceptions to the preservation rule.