Can trial counsel be ineffective for not requesting a defense-of-others instruction? State v. Cartwright Explained

In State v. Cartwright, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial counsel’s strategic decisions during a criminal trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling ineffective assistance claims and jury instruction requests.

Background and Facts

Aaron Paul Cartwright and his girlfriend lived in his car and used methamphetamine together. After waking up “really mad” one night, Cartwright chased his girlfriend across the street while she screamed for help. When police arrived, they found Cartwright on top of his girlfriend with his hands on her face, mouth, and neck, preventing her from breathing. Cartwright was charged with aggravated assault and convicted after trial. His counsel had stipulated to all jury instructions without requesting a defense-of-others instruction, did not object to certain leading questions during examination, and did not seek admission of medical records showing Cartwright had been bitten.

Key Legal Issues

Cartwright raised three ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) failure to request a defense-of-others jury instruction based on his alleged belief that force was necessary to prevent his girlfriend from self-harm, (2) failure to object to leading questions during direct examination, and (3) failure to seek admission of medical records documenting a human bite. The court applied the Strickland standard requiring proof of both deficient performance and prejudice.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected all three claims. For the defense-of-others instruction, the court found counsel could reasonably conclude the evidence did not support the necessary elements—particularly that any belief force was necessary was objectively reasonable or that any threat was imminent. Regarding the leading questions, while some were objectionable, competent counsel could reasonably choose not to object as a matter of trial strategy. For the medical records, even assuming deficient performance, Cartwright could not demonstrate prejudice because the impeachment value would not have changed the trial outcome given the strong evidence against him.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that attorneys have broad discretion in making strategic trial decisions and are not required to pursue every possible claim or objection. When evaluating jury instruction requests, counsel must consider whether sufficient evidence exists to support each element of the proposed defense. The decision also demonstrates that even valid objections need not always be made if counsel reasonably concludes the battle is not worth fighting.