Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah defendants be convicted of attempted murder based on knowing conduct? State v. Lisenbee Explained
Summary
Lisenbee brutally attacked a friend with a hammer, causing severe permanent injuries including facial fractures and blindness. After conviction for attempted murder, he claimed ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to object to jury instructions allowing conviction on a knowing mental state.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Earon Lisenbee brutally attacked Rebecca after a disagreement about their relationship status. He prevented her from leaving his apartment, pinned her down, and beat her with his fists and a hammer. Rebecca suffered severe injuries including broken facial bones, arm fractures, three hematomas, knocked-out teeth, and permanent blindness in one eye. Medical testimony established she would have died without timely treatment. Lisenbee called a friend saying “I think I killed her” and requested help disposing of her body. Police found a bloody hammer hidden in his bedroom closet.
Key Legal Issues
Lisenbee appealed his attempted murder conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to jury instructions that allegedly permitted conviction based on a knowing mental state rather than requiring intentional conduct. He relied on State v. Casey, which held that attempted murder required proof of intentional action.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals rejected Lisenbee’s claim, finding that Casey’s holding had been superseded by statutory amendment. In 2004, the legislature amended Utah Code § 76-4-101 to explicitly allow attempt convictions based on knowing conduct when “causing a particular result is an element of the crime” and the defendant “acts with an awareness that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause that result.” Since murder requires causing death, and Lisenbee acted knowing his conduct was reasonably certain to cause Rebecca’s death, the jury instructions were legally correct.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the critical importance of checking whether statutory amendments have modified controlling precedent. Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make futile objections to legally correct jury instructions. Practitioners should carefully review the current version of relevant statutes rather than relying solely on older case law when challenging jury instructions or developing trial strategy.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Lisenbee
Citation
2022 UT App 19
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200155-CA
Date Decided
February 10, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to jury instructions permitting attempted murder conviction based on knowing mental state, as 2004 amendments to Utah’s attempt statute superseded State v. Casey and allowed convictions based on knowing conduct.
Standard of Review
Correctness for ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal
Practice Tip
When challenging jury instructions on appeal, verify whether statutory amendments have superseded controlling case law that would support your objection.
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.