Are self-defense and peace officer exemptions elements or affirmative defenses under Utah's dangerous weapon statute? State v. Bess Explained

In State v. Bess, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a fundamental question about burden of proof in criminal cases involving threatening with a dangerous weapon: whether statutory exemptions for self-defense and peace officer conduct constitute elements of the offense or affirmative defenses.

Background and Facts

Lance Bess, a detective with the Unified Police Department, was bird hunting with family members when another hunter accidentally fired three shots in their direction. After the shooting stopped, Bess angrily confronted the hunting party with his service weapon drawn and held at his side. The State charged Bess with threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel under Utah Code section 76-10-506.

The district court instructed the jury on five elements of the offense but initially omitted instructions on self-defense and peace officer performance of duties. Over Bess’s objection, the court treated these as affirmative defenses rather than elements, providing instructions on them only after sufficient evidence was presented during trial.

Key Legal Issues

The case turned on statutory interpretation of Utah Code section 76-10-506, which states the offense “does not apply” to persons acting in self-defense or peace officers performing their duties. Bess argued these were “negative elements” requiring the State to disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt in every case. The court of appeals certified the question to the Utah Supreme Court.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that exemptions from criminal statutes generally function as affirmative defenses. The court relied on the plain language stating the statute “does not apply” to certain persons and circumstances, characterizing these as exceptions rather than prohibited conduct. The court noted that requiring the State to disprove every possible exemption in every case would be impractical and contrary to the basic function of affirmative defenses in narrowing relevant issues.

Importantly, the court clarified that treating these as affirmative defenses does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. Once sufficient evidence puts an affirmative defense at issue, the State must still disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for criminal practitioners handling weapons charges. Defense attorneys should ensure they present sufficient evidence during trial to trigger jury instructions on applicable affirmative defenses. Prosecutors should be prepared to address these defenses once they are properly raised, understanding they maintain the burden to disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt.