Utah Supreme Court
Can past abuse justify present force in defense of a third person? State v. Berriel Explained
Summary
Darren Berriel stabbed Luis after receiving a call from Rachel, Luis’s girlfriend, saying Luis was hurting her. When Berriel arrived at the scene, Rachel was standing fifteen feet away and not in immediate danger. The district court refused to instruct the jury on defense of a third person, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In State v. Berriel, Darren Berriel received a frantic phone call from Rachel, who was crying and screaming that her boyfriend Luis “had been hurting [her]” and asking for help. Berriel and friends immediately drove to Rachel’s house. When Luis and Rachel returned to the residence with Rachel’s brother, Berriel approached Luis in the street and stabbed him with a knife, causing a laceration requiring stitches. At the time of the stabbing, Rachel stood at least fifteen feet away and was not involved in any altercation.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on defense of a third person under Utah Code section 76-2-402. This statute justifies force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend against another’s imminent use of unlawful force. Berriel argued that three pieces of evidence supported his theory: Rachel’s call for help, her continued presence with Luis, and Luis’s history of violence toward Rachel.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, emphasizing the statutory requirements of imminence and necessity. While Rachel’s phone call suggested danger at the time of the call, when Berriel encountered the couple, there was no evidence of immediate threat. Rachel and Luis “did not appear even to be arguing,” Luis had not threatened or approached Rachel, and Rachel remained fifteen feet from the confrontation. The court distinguished between justified defensive force and impermissible “retribution or vigilantism,” noting that a history of abuse cannot create a “continuing license to attack” without present imminent danger.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that defense of a third person instructions require evidence of imminent danger at the precise moment force is used. Past abuse, threats of future violence, or general patterns of domestic violence, while relevant under section 76-2-402(5), are insufficient alone to establish the imminence requirement. Practitioners seeking such instructions must demonstrate that the protected person faced immediate, present danger when the defendant acted.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Berriel
Citation
2013 UT 19
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20110926
Date Decided
April 5, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on defense of a third person when the evidence shows no imminent danger to the third person at the time of the defendant’s use of force.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for district court’s refusal to give jury instruction, with correctness review on certiorari from court of appeals
Practice Tip
When seeking a jury instruction on defense of a third person, ensure the evidence shows imminent danger to the protected person at the precise moment force was used, not just a history of past abuse or general threat.
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.