Utah Court of Appeals
Can defense counsel reasonably decline to request lesser-included offense instructions? State v. Flynn Explained
Summary
Flynn shot and killed Tafua outside a bar after a confrontation and claimed self-defense at trial. Flynn was convicted of murder and filed a motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance because his counsel failed to request a jury instruction on extreme emotional distress as a mitigation defense.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Flynn, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel’s failure to request an extreme emotional distress jury instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court’s analysis provides important guidance on how strategic decisions regarding jury instructions are evaluated under the Strickland standard.
Background and Facts
Flynn was involved in an altercation outside a St. George bar that escalated when multiple individuals, including Tafua, confronted him in a parking lot. Flynn retrieved a rifle from his car, warned the group to back away, and ultimately shot Tafua in the chest when Tafua lunged for the weapon. Flynn claimed he acted in perfect self-defense. Defense counsel advised Flynn to reject a plea offer for manslaughter, believing that even if the jury rejected perfect self-defense, manslaughter was a “reasonable worst-case scenario.”
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether counsel’s failure to request an extreme emotional distress instruction—which could have reduced murder to manslaughter—fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court had to determine whether this omission was a reasonable strategic choice or deficient performance under the first prong of the Strickland analysis.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed Flynn’s conviction, finding counsel’s performance was not deficient. The court emphasized that counsel pursued an all-or-nothing defense strategy focused on perfect self-defense, which was arguably inconsistent with extreme emotional distress. Key factors supporting counsel’s reasonableness included: (1) the extreme emotional distress defense would have undermined the self-defense theory; (2) the evidence better supported self-defense than extreme emotional distress; (3) the State had already requested imperfect self-defense instructions, giving Flynn a middle-ground option; and (4) the burden of proof was more favorable for imperfect self-defense.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that courts will uphold counsel’s strategic decisions when they fall within the “wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Practitioners should carefully consider whether multiple defenses are truly complementary or potentially inconsistent. The decision also highlights the tactical advantage of allowing the prosecution to request lesser-included instructions while maintaining an adamant defense position.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Flynn
Citation
2022 UT App 89
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200685-CA
Date Decided
July 14, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Defense counsel did not perform ineffectively by failing to request an extreme emotional distress jury instruction when counsel reasonably chose an all-or-nothing self-defense strategy that was arguably inconsistent with the extreme emotional distress defense.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law; clear error for factual findings
Practice Tip
When evaluating ineffective assistance claims involving failure to request jury instructions, consider whether the unrequested instruction would have been inconsistent with counsel’s chosen defense strategy.
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.