Utah Court of Appeals
How should Utah courts instruct juries on reasonable discipline defenses? State v. Paramoure Explained
Summary
Philip Paramoure was convicted of child abuse after physically disciplining his 14-year-old son during a confrontation. He raised the affirmative defense of reasonable discipline, but the trial court gave a supplemental instruction that misstated the burden of proof for disproving this defense.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a critical issue regarding jury instructions on the reasonable discipline defense in child abuse cases. In State v. Paramoure, the court reversed a conviction because the trial court’s supplemental instruction improperly lowered the State’s burden to disprove this affirmative defense.
Background and Facts
Philip Paramoure was charged with child abuse after physically disciplining his 14-year-old son during a heated exchange. The confrontation began when Paramoure’s son requested to delay their weekend visit to help a friend who was “talking about hurting himself.” After a series of increasingly hostile text messages, Paramoure arrived to pick up his son and a physical altercation ensued. Paramoure pushed, slapped, and pinned his son to the ground, resulting in a cut above the son’s eye and other injuries. Paramoure raised the affirmative defense of reasonable discipline under Utah Code section 76-5-109(8)(a).
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue concerned whether the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction properly stated the law regarding the reasonable discipline defense. When the jury asked for additional guidance on what constitutes “reasonable discipline,” the court instructed them to determine “would an objectively reasonable person…use the force the Defendant did to discipline his child.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals found that this instruction improperly lowered the State’s burden to disprove the reasonable discipline defense. The court explained that the proper inquiry was not whether a reasonable person would have used the same force, but whether no reasonable person would have used that level of force. This distinction is crucial because multiple reasonable approaches to discipline may exist, including using no force at all. The court concluded there was a reasonable probability the erroneous instruction affected the outcome, particularly given the jury’s specific question about reasonable discipline during deliberations.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of precise language in jury instructions for affirmative defenses. Trial courts must ensure that instructions clearly communicate the State’s burden to prove that no reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did. Defense attorneys should be vigilant about proposed supplemental instructions that may inadvertently shift or lower the prosecution’s burden, even when the instruction explicitly states the proper burden allocation elsewhere.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Paramoure
Citation
2026 UT App 74
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20240381-CA
Date Decided
May 7, 2026
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A supplemental jury instruction that asked whether an objectively reasonable person would use the same force as the defendant improperly lowered the State’s burden to disprove the reasonable discipline defense, which requires proving that no reasonable person would have used such force.
Standard of Review
Correctness for challenges to jury instructions
Practice Tip
When drafting jury instructions on reasonable discipline defenses, ensure the instruction requires the State to prove that no reasonable person would have used the defendant’s level of force, rather than asking whether a reasonable person would have done the same thing.
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.