Can defense counsel's misstatement of legal standards constitute ineffective assistance? State v. McDonald Explained

In State v. McDonald, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel’s misstatement of a legal standard during closing arguments could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court’s analysis provides important guidance for practitioners about the precision required when explaining legal terms to juries.

Background and Facts

McDonald, a seventeen-year-old defendant weighing 125-130 pounds, was convicted of aggravated assault for punching an adult man and breaking his jaw. The key disputed element was whether McDonald used force “likely to produce death or serious bodily injury” under Utah Code § 76-5-103(2)(b)(iii). During closing arguments, defense counsel told the jury that the “best case for the State” would be that “likely” means “something is like 50.1 percent going to happen,” though counsel argued it should be “way, way higher than that.” The jury later sent a note asking for clarification about “how much weight” to put on the word “likely.”

Key Legal Issues

The court examined two issues: (1) whether counsel’s explanation of “likely” constituted deficient performance, and (2) whether this deficiency prejudiced the defendant under the Strickland standard. The central question was whether suggesting that “likely” could encompass a 50.1% probability misstated the law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court concluded that defense counsel’s performance was deficient. Examining dictionary definitions and Utah Supreme Court precedent, the court determined that “likely” means having “a high probability of occurring” or being “probable”—markedly more than 50.1%. The court found no sound strategic purpose in misstating the law to the defendant’s detriment. Regarding prejudice, the court noted that the case “essentially came down to” whether the punch constituted force likely to cause serious bodily injury, and the jury’s question about the “weight” of “likely” demonstrated confusion about this critical element.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of precision when explaining legal standards to juries. Even inadvertent misstatements can constitute ineffective assistance if they lower the prosecution’s burden. The court’s limitation of its holding to the aggravated assault statute suggests that “likely” may have different meanings in different contexts, requiring careful analysis of each statute’s specific requirements.