Does strangulation automatically constitute force likely to cause serious bodily injury? State v. Alires Explained

In State v. Alires, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether brief strangulation constitutes sufficient evidence of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury for purposes of aggravated assault and domestic violence charges.

Background and Facts

Teresa Alires and her wife engaged in a heated domestic dispute that escalated to physical violence in the presence of their infant child and teenage niece. During the altercation, Alires threatened to “choke out” and kill her wife, then proceeded to strangle her for approximately thirty seconds by placing both hands around her neck and applying pressure until the victim could not breathe or speak. The victim suffered visible injuries including red markings on her neck, difficulty swallowing for several days, and throat pain. The State charged Alires with aggravated assault and two counts of domestic violence in the presence of a child.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether thirty seconds of strangulation constituted sufficient evidence of “force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” as required for the charged offenses, and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Alires’s request for a self-defense instruction after she testified that she did not actually strangle the victim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the convictions on both issues. Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court held that “any amount of strangulation is sufficient evidence of force adequate to cause serious bodily harm.” The court relied on expert testimony that brain cells begin dying within six to ten seconds of oxygen deprivation and that strangulation inherently involves dangerous pressure to vital neck structures. Importantly, the court emphasized that actual death or serious bodily injury need not occur—only that the defendant used means or force likely to have that result.

On the self-defense instruction issue, the court applied harmless error analysis and found any error harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court noted the fundamental inconsistency between Alires’s primary defense (denying she strangled the victim) and her requested self-defense instruction (which would require acknowledging the strangulation occurred).

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah courts will find sufficient evidence of serious bodily injury in any strangulation case, regardless of duration or visible injury. Defense attorneys should carefully consider the consistency between their client’s testimony and requested jury instructions, as contradictory positions can undermine credibility and result in harmless error findings even when instructional errors occur. The case also reinforces that preservation of error requires explicit constitutional arguments rather than general requests for instructions.