Can Utah courts refuse jury instructions that accurately state the law? State v. Devan Explained

In State v. Devan, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts must give every jury instruction requested by a defendant, even when the instruction accurately states the law. The case provides important guidance on jury instruction standards and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Background and Facts

Evin Devan was convicted of aggravated assault after attacking an acquaintance outside a bar. The incident began when Steve texted Devan demanding a refund for CBD gummies he thought were THC edibles. When they met at a bar, Devan asked Steve to step outside, then repeatedly punched and kicked him, causing a separated jaw requiring surgery and permanent nerve damage. Devan claimed self-defense, arguing Steve had a history of violence and appeared threatening during their confrontation.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing defendant’s requested “actual-danger” instruction for self-defense, and (2) whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request instructions on lesser-included offenses, the definition of “aggressor,” and defense of habitation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied abuse of discretion review to the jury instruction issue. The court held that while defendant’s proposed actual-danger instruction accurately stated the law, the trial court properly refused it because the concepts were adequately covered by standard MUJI self-defense instructions and the direct-and-circumstantial-evidence instruction. The court emphasized that instructions must be viewed “in their entirety” and that courts may refuse instructions when “the point is properly covered in other instructions.”

Regarding ineffective assistance claims, the court found counsel’s strategic decisions reasonable. Counsel’s choice not to request a lesser-included offense instruction represented a valid “all or nothing” defense strategy. Similarly, not requesting additional definitional instructions was within counsel’s discretion where existing instructions adequately conveyed the legal standards.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial courts have significant discretion over jury instructions. Even legally accurate instructions may be refused if they duplicate concepts covered elsewhere. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether proposed instructions add meaningful clarity beyond standard MUJI instructions. The ruling also demonstrates the high bar for proving ineffective assistance regarding strategic decisions about jury instructions, particularly when counsel pursues coherent defense theories.