Can incorrect jury instructions on burden of proof constitute ineffective assistance? State v. Bonds Explained

In State v. Bonds, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether defense counsel’s failure to object to incorrect jury instructions on imperfect self-defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, even when the error did not affect the ultimate verdict.

Background and facts: Christopher Bonds shot his friend Byron Williams in the back from ten feet away as Williams ran unarmed from him. At trial, Bonds argued he acted to protect his family after Williams allegedly threatened to “shoot this whole house and these kids.” The district court instructed the jury on both self-defense and imperfect self-defense, with Bonds agreeing to the instructions. However, the manslaughter instruction incorrectly stated that to convict Bonds of manslaughter, the jury had to find “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he “acted in accordance with an imperfect self defense.”

Key legal issues: The court examined two claims of ineffective assistance: first, whether counsel was deficient for failing to object to the jury instruction that reversed the burden of proof for imperfect self-defense; and second, whether counsel was deficient for not objecting to the State’s use of Bonds’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. The court also addressed what constitutes prejudice under the Strickland standard.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Utah Supreme Court agreed that the manslaughter instruction was legally erroneous because it treated imperfect self-defense as an element requiring affirmative proof rather than as an affirmative defense that the State must disprove. The court held that counsel’s failure to object was objectively unreasonable given that imperfect self-defense was Bonds’s only viable defense strategy. However, the court found no prejudice under Strickland because the evidence overwhelmingly supported murder rather than manslaughter—Bonds shot an unarmed victim in the back while the victim was running away.

Practice implications: This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners on properly instructing juries regarding imperfect self-defense. The court emphasized that when imperfect self-defense is at issue, jury instructions must clearly state that the prosecution bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in imperfect self-defense. Neither party has the burden to prove that the defendant did act in imperfect self-defense. The decision also reinforces that even clear attorney errors may not warrant relief absent a reasonable probability of a different outcome.