- Utah Courts

Finding Legal Help

You are not required to hire an attorney, but legal matters can be complicated. Consider talking to an attorney to go over your options. See the Finding Legal Help page for information about free and low cost ways to get legal help.

Como encontrar ayuda legal

Usted no está obligado a contratar un abogado, pero los asuntos legales pueden ser complicados. Considere la posibilidad de hablar con un abogado para hablar de sus opciones. Para información sobre cómo obtener ayuda legal vea nuestra página Como encontrar ayuda legal.

CR401 Fact Versus Expert Witnesses.

There are two types of witnesses: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. Usually a fact witness can testify only about facts that (he) (she) can see, hear, touch, taste or smell. An expert witness has scientific, technical or other special knowledge that allows the witness to give an opinion. An expert's knowledge can come from training, education, experience or skill. Experts can testify about facts, and they can give their opinions in their area of expertise.

You may have to weigh one expert's opinion against another's. In weighing the opinions of experts, you may look at their qualifications, the reasoning process the experts used, and the overall credibility of their testimony. You may also look at things like bias, consistency, and reputation.

Use your common sense in evaluating all witnesses, including expert witnesses. You do not have to accept an expert's opinion. You may accept it all, reject it all, or accept part and reject part. Give it whatever weight you think it deserves.

References

Utah R. Evid. 702.
Utah Code Ann. sect. 78B-1-128.
United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2000).
Toma v. Utah Power & Light Co., 365 P.2d 788, 792-793 (Utah 1961).
State v. Shockley, 80 P. 865, 879 (1905).
75 Am. Jur.2d Trial sect. 819.

CR402 Separate Consideration of Multiple Crimes.

The defendant has been charged with more than one crime. It is your duty to consider each charge separately. For each crime charged, consider all of the evidence related to that charge. Decide whether the prosecution has presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that particular crime. Your verdict on one charge does not determine your verdict on any other charge.

References

United States v. Figueroa, 56 F. Supp.2d 1222, 1224 (D. Utah 1999).
75 Am. Jur.2d Trial sect. 149.

CR403A Party Liability - Elements.

(DEFENDANT'S NAME) is charged as a party to the offense [in Count_____] with committing (CRIME) [on or about (DATE)]. You cannot convict [him] [her] of this offense unless based on the evidence, you find beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following elements:

(DEFENDANT'S NAME), as a party to the offense;
[Insert element two of (CRIME)];
[Insert element three of (CRIME)];
Etc.

After you carefully consider all the evidence in this case, if you are convinced that each and every element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant GUILTY. On the other hand, if you are not convinced that one or more of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant NOT GUILTY.

References

State v. Grunwald, 2018 UT App 45
State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49
Utah Code sect. 76-2-202

Committee Notes

This instruction must be used with CR403B.

Committee Amended

CR403B Party Liability - Definition.

A person can commit a crime as a "party to the offense." In other words, a person can commit a criminal offense even though he or she did not personally do all of the acts that make up the offense. Before a person may be found guilty as a "party to the offense," you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that:

The person had the mental state required to commit the charged offense;

The person:

directly committed the charged offense; or
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly solicited, requested, commanded or encouraged another person to commit the charged offense; or
intentionally aided another person to commit the charged offense;

The charged offense was committed either by that person or another person.

References

State v. Eyre, 2019 UT App 129
State v. Grunwald, 2018 UT App 45
State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49
Utah Code sect. 76-2-202

Committee Notes

This instruction must be used with CR403A.

Committee Amended

CR404 Eyewitnesses Identification [Long instruction].

An important question in this case is the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the crime. The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed AND that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, you must find the defendant not guilty.

The testimony you have heard concerning identification represents the witness's expression of (his) (her) belief or impression. You don't have to believe that the identification witness was lying or not sincere to find the defendant not guilty. It is enough that you conclude that the witness was mistaken in (his) (her) belief or impression.

Many factors affect the accuracy of identification. In considering whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, you should consider the following:

(1) Did the witness have an adequate opportunity to observe the person who committed the crime? In answering this question, you should consider:

(a) the length of time the witness observed that person;
(b) the distance between the witness and that person;
(c) the extent to which that person's features were visible and undisguised;
(d) the lighting conditions at the time of observation;
(e) whether there were any distractions occurring during the observation;
(f) any other circumstance that affected the witness's opportunity to observe the person committing the crime.

(2) Did the witness have the capacity to observe the person committing the crime? In answering this question, you should consider whether the capacity of the witness was impaired by:

(a) stress or fright at the time of observation;
(b) personal motivations, biases or prejudices;
(c) uncorrected visual defects;
(d) fatigue or injury;
(e) drugs or alcohol.

[You should also consider whether the witness is of a different race than the person identified. Identification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than identification by a person of the same race.]

(3) Even if the witness had adequate opportunity and capacity to observe the person who committed the crime, the witness may not have focused on that person unless the witness was aware that a crime was being committed. In that instance you should consider whether the witness was sufficiently attentive to that person at the time the crime occurred. In answering this question you should consider whether the witness knew that a crime was taking place during the time (he) (she) observed the person's actions.

(4) Was the witness's identification of the defendant completely the product of the witness's own memory? In answering this question, you should consider:

(a) the length of time that passed between the witness's original observation and the time the witness identified the defendant;
(b) the witness's mental capacity and state of mind at the time of the identification;
(c) the exposure of the witness to opinions, to photographs, or to any other information or influence that may have affected the independence of the identification of the defendant by the witness;
[(d) any instances when the witness either identified or failed to identify the defendant;]
[(e) any instances when the witness gave a description of the person that was either consistent or inconsistent with the defendant's appearance;]
(f) the circumstances under which the defendant was presented to the witness for identification.

[You may take into account that an identification made by picking the defendant from a group of similar individuals is generally more reliable than an identification made from the defendant being presented alone to the witness.]

[You may also take into account that identifications made from seeing the person are generally more reliable than identifications made from a photograph.]

[A witness's level of confidence in (his) (her) identification of the perpetrator is one of many factors that you may consider in evaluating whether the witness correctly identified the perpetrator. However, a witness who is confident that (he) (she) correctly identified the perpetrator may be mistaken.]

Again, I emphasize that it is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

References

State v. Guzman, 2006 UT 12, para.para.15-23, 133 P.3d 363.
State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483, 487-95 (Utah 1986).
R. Sanders, Helping the Jury Evaluate Eyewitness Testimony: The Need for Additional Safeguards, 12 Am. J. Crim. L. 189, 222-24 (1984).

Committee Notes

Bracketed portions of the instruction should be used when appropriate to the facts of the case. Also, this instruction should be modified if the identification involves someone other than the defendant, or where it would otherwise be confusing, such as where the defendant is not charged with directly committing the offense, but as a party.

CR405 Flight from Scene.

Evidence was introduced at trial that the defendant may have fled or attempted to flee from the crime scene. This evidence alone is not enough to establish guilt. However, if you believe that evidence, you may consider it along with the rest of the evidence in reaching a verdict. It's up to you to decide how much weight to give that evidence.

Keep in mind that there may be reasons for flight that could be fully consistent with innocence. Even if you choose to infer from the evidence that the defendant had a "guilty conscience," that does not necessarily mean (he) (she) is guilty of the crime charged.

References

United States v. Martinez, 681 F.2d 1248, 1256-58 (10th Cir. 1982).
Bailey v. United States, 410 F.2d 1209, 1217 (10th Cir. 1969).
State v. Franklin, 735 P.2d 34, 39 (Utah 1987).
State v. Bales, 675 P.2d 573, 574-76 (Utah 1983).
State v. Simpson, 236 P.2d 1077, 1079 (Utah 1951).
29 Am. Jur.2d Evidence sect. 316.
75B Am. Jur.2d Trial sect. 1333.

CR406 Flight after Accusation.

Evidence was introduced at trial that the defendant may have fled or attempted to flee after having been accused of the crime. This evidence alone is not enough to establish guilt. However, if you believe that evidence, you may consider it along with the rest of the evidence in reaching a verdict. It's up to you to decide how much weight to give that evidence.

Keep in mind that there may be reasons for flight that could be fully consistent with innocence. Even if you choose to infer from the evidence that the defendant had a "guilty conscience," that does not necessarily mean (he) (she) is guilty of the crime charged.

References

CR407 Law Enforcement Officer's Testimony.

You have heard the testimony of a law enforcement officer. The fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that (his) (her) testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness. It is up to you to give any witness's testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.

References

Utah Code Ann. sect. 78B-1-128.
United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2000).
Toma v. Utah Power & Light Co., 365 P.2d 788, 792-793 (Utah 1961).
State v. Shockley, 80 P. 865, 879 (1905).
75 Am. Jur.2d Trial sect. 819.

CR408 Age of Witness.

You have heard the testimony of a young witness. No witness is disqualified just because of age. There is no precise age that determines whether a witness may testify. The critical consideration is not the witness's age, but whether the witness understands the difference between what is true and what is not true, and understands the duty to tell the truth.

References

Utah R. Evid. 601(a).
Utah Code Ann. sect. 78B-1-127.
Utah Code Ann. sect. 78B-1-128.
State v. Smith, 401 P.2d 445, 447 (Utah 1965).

CR409 609-Impeaching Defendant Testimony by Prior Conviction.

Evidence has been presented that the defendant was previously convicted of a crime. This evidence was brought to your attention only to help you evaluate the credibility of the defendant as a witness. Do not use it for any other purpose. It is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) for which (he) (she) is now on trial.

References

Utah R. Evid. 609(a)(2).

Committee Notes

This instruction should be used when a defendant is testifying and evidence of the defendant's prior conviction(s) is being introduced only to challenge the defendant's credibility under Utah R. Evid. 609. However, do not use this instruction if the conviction is being introduced under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) as prior "crime, wrong or act" of a non-testifying defendant, or is being used for both 609 and 404(b) purposes when the defendant chooses to testify. Instead, use the applicable stock instructions for 404(b) situations.

CR410 609-Impeaching Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction.

Evidence has been presented that a witness was previously convicted of a crime. This evidence was brought to your attention only to help you evaluate the credibility of that witness. Do not use it for any other purpose. It is not evidence of anything else.

References

Utah R. Evid. 609(a)(1).

Committee Notes

This instruction should be used when evidence of a witness's prior conviction(s) is being introduced to challenge the witness's credibility under Utah R. Evid. 609. However, do not use this instruction if the conviction is being introduced under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) as prior "crime, wrong or act" of a witness, a non-testifying defendant, or for both 609 and 404(b) purposes. Instead, use the applicable stock instructions for 404(b) situations.

CR411 404(b) Instruction.

You (are about to hear) (have heard) evidence that the defendant [insert 404(b) evidence] (before) (after) the act(s) charged in this case. This evidence (is) (was) not admitted to prove a character trait of the defendant or to show that (he) (she) acted in a manner consistent with that trait. You may consider this evidence, if at all, for the limited purpose of [practitioners must specify proper non-character purpose such as motive, intent, etc. and to which issue(s) it applies]. Keep in mind that the defendant is on trial for the crime(s) charged in this case, and for (that) (those) crime(s) only. You may not convict the defendant simply because you believe (he) (she) may have committed some other act(s) at another time.

References

Utah R. Evid. 105
Utah R. Evid. 404(b)
State v. Lane, 2019 UT App 86
State v. Bell, 770 P.2d 100 (1988)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691-92 (1988)
State v. Forsyth, 641 P.2d 1172, 1175-76 (Utah 1982)
29 Am. Jur.2d Evidence sect. 461

Committee Notes

When used, this instruction must be modified in accordance with State v. Lane and State v. Bell. Further, this instruction, if given, should be given at the time the 404(b) evidence is presented to the jury and, upon request, again in the closing instructions. Under Rule 105, the court must give a limiting instruction upon request of the defendant. The committee recognizes, however, that there may be times when a defendant, for strategic purposes, does not want a 404(b) instruction to be given at the time the evidence is introduced. In those instances, a record should be made outside the presence of the jury that the defendant affirmatively waives the giving of a limiting instruction.

404(b) allows evidence when relevant to prove any material fact, except criminal disposition as the basis for an inference that the defendant committed the crime charged. See State v. Forsyth. In the rare instance where, after the jury has been instructed, a party identifies another proper non-character purpose, the court may give additional instruction.

If the 404(b) evidence was a prior conviction admitted also to impeach under Rule 609, see instruction CR409.

If the instruction relates to a witness other than a defendant, it should be modified.

Committee Amended

Last Revised - 08/07/2019

CR412 Stipulation of Fact.

When lawyers agree that certain facts are true it is called a "stipulation of fact." You must accept any stipulated facts as having been proven. However, the significance of these facts, as with all facts, is for you to decide.

CR413 Stipulation of Expected Testimony.

Lawyers may also agree that a witness, if called, would offer certain testimony. That is called a "stipulation of expected testimony." Although you must accept that the witness would give this testimony, you do not have to accept that testimony as true. You may consider it and give it whatever weight it deserves.

CR414A Multiple Defendants - Missing Defendant(s).

There has been evidence suggesting that [a person] [persons] other than the defendant may have been involved in the crime for which the defendant is on trial. Your duty in this case is to decide only whether the prosecutor has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the defendant who is on trial.

References

United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666, 674 (5th Cir. 2005).
26 Moore's Federal Practice sect. 630.31.

Committee Notes

This instruction should not be given when evidence of others' involvement is required to prove an element of the charged crime, i.e., conspiracy or concerted criminal activity ("gang enhancement") charges.

CR414B Multiple Defendants - Joint Trial.

There is more than one defendant on trial. If evidence was admitted only as to one defendant, you may consider it in connection with that defendant only. You must consider the charges against each defendant separately.

References

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993).
United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 433-34 (10th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Pinto, 838 F.2d 426, 434 (10th Cir. 1988).
State v. Anderson, 158 P.2d 127, 129 (Utah 1945).

CR415 In-Custody Informant.

You have heard from a witness who may be classified as an "in-custody informant." The law allows the use of such testimony. However, the testimony of an informant who provides evidence against a defendant must be examined and weighed by you with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness. Whether the informant's testimony has been affected by interest or prejudice against the defendant is for you to determine. In making that determination, you should consider:

Whether the informant has received anything (including leniency in prosecution, personal advantage, or vindication) in exchange for testimony;
Other cases, and the number of other cases, in which the informant testified or offered statements against another, whether those statements are being used, and whether the informant received any deal, promise, inducement, or benefit in exchange for that testimony or statement, or believed he was likely to receive some benefit from his cooperation;
Whether the informant has ever changed his or her testimony;
The criminal history of the informant, not just limited to number of convictions, but also the level of sophistication gained through the informant's experience in the criminal justice system; and
Any other evidence related to the informant's credibility.

In sum, you should look at all of the evidence in deciding what credence and what weight, if any, you would give to the jailhouse informant.

You should bear in mind that a witness who has entered into such an agreement with the government may have an interest in the case different than any ordinary witness. A witness who believes that he may be able to obtain his own freedom, or receive a lighter sentence by giving testimony favorable to the prosecution, has motive to testify falsely. Therefore, you must examine [his] [her] testimony with caution and weigh it with great care. If, after scrutinizing [his] [her] testimony, you decide to accept it, you may give it whatever weight, if any, you find it deserves.

References

State v. Charles, 2011 UT App 291, 263 P.3d 469.

CR416 Adverse inference for law enforcement failure to comply with activation or use of body-worn camera.

Evidence was introduced at trial that [Officer Name] may have intentionally or recklessly disregarded the requirement that

[an officer shall activate the body-worn camera prior to any law enforcement encounter, or as soon as reasonably possible]

[an officer shall record in an uninterrupted manner until after the conclusion of a law enforcement encounter, and there was not an exception allowed by law]

[an officer may not deactivate the body-worn camera until the officer's direct participation in the law enforcement encounter is complete]

[any other requirement].

Based upon that evidence, you may make an inference against the officer. It is up to you to decide how much weight to give that evidence.

References

Utah Code sect. 77-7a-104
Utah Code sect. 77-7a-104.1
State v. DeJesus, 2017 UT 22

Committee Notes

Prior to giving this instruction, the court presiding over a jury trial must determine that the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer intentionally or with reckless disregard of the requirements, failed to comply with a requirement of section 77-7a-104 AND the officers' failure to comply with that requirement is reasonably likely to affect the outcome of the defendant's trial.

Committee Amended

05/05/2021

CR430 Jury Unanimity - Single Offense in More Than One Way.

Count (#) charges (DEFENDANT'S NAME) with (CRIME). The prosecution argues that the defendant may have committed the offense by [WAY 1][WAY 2][WAY 3].

You may not find (DEFENDANT'S NAME) guilty on this count unless you unanimously agree that the prosecution has proven that (DEFENDANT'S NAME) committed (CRIME) in at least one of those specific ways AND you unanimously agree on the specific way in which the defendant committed the offense.

References

State v. Russell, 733 P.2d 162 (Utah 1987)
State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987)
State v. Johnson, 821 P.2d 1150 (Utah 1991)
State v. Saunders, 1999 UT 59
State v. Hummel, 2017 UT 19
State v. Alires, 2019 UT App 206
State v. Case, 2020 UT App 81
State v. Whytock, 2020 UT App 107
State v. Covington, 2020 UT App 110
State v. Mendoza, 2021 UT App 79
State v. Paule, 2021 UT App 120
State v. Baugh, 2022 UT App 3

MUJI 1st Instruction

Committee Notes

CR430 should be used in circumstances where the prosecution presents evidence that, if believed, could support a finding that the defendant committed two or more acts that could have been charged as separate offenses, but were not. See, e.g., State v. Paule, 2021 UT App 120. For example, the prosecution presents evidence that the defendant obstructed justice by attempting to dispose of a weapon, disposing of his phone, and fleeing the state, but the defendant was charged with only one count of obstruction of justice. In addition to CR430, the committee encourages practitioners to use a special verdict form or forms to confirm that the jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Committee Amended

06/05/2024

CR431 Jury Unanimity - Multiple Offenses with Identical Elements.

The prosecution has charged in Count (#) through Count (#) that (DEFENDANT'S NAME) committed (CRIME) multiple times. Although each of these counts has similar or identical elements, you must consider each count separately and reach unanimous agreement on whether (DEFENDANT'S NAME) is guilty or not guilty of each individual count. You may not find the defendant guilty of any count unless you unanimously agree the prosecution has proven the specific act in the elements of the offense for each count AND you unanimously agree the prosecution has proven all other elements of the count. You may find the defendant guilty of all of these counts, none of these counts, or only some of these counts; but for each count your decision must be unanimous.

In this case:

Count (#) is based on the alleged conduct of (INSERT SPECIFIC CONDUCT AND OCCASION).
Count (#) is based on the alleged conduct of (INSERT SPECIFIC CONDUCT AND OCCASION).
[Count (#) is based on the alleged conduct of (INSERT SPECIFIC CONDUCT AND OCCASION).]

References

Committee Notes

CR431 should be used in circumstances where multiple counts have identical elements but are alleged to have occurred on different occasions or are different acts allegedly committed on the same occasion. See, e.g., State v. Alires, 2019 UT App 206. For example, the prosecutor presents evidence of sexual abuse of a child on multiple occasions over time or different acts of touching on the same occasion. In addition to CR431, the committee encourages practitioners to specify in the elements instruction the particular act that is the basis for the charge and to use a special verdict form or forms where appropriate to confirm that the jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Committee Amended

06/01/2022

CR432 Jury Unanimity - Evidence of More Occurrences than Charges.

The prosecution has charged in Count (#) through Count (#) that (DEFENDANT'S NAME) committed (CRIME). The prosecution argues that (DEFENDANT'S NAME) may have committed (CRIME) more times than the number of charged counts. When determining whether (DEFENDANT'S NAME) committed (CRIME), you must be unanimous as to which occasion and which act (DEFENDANT'S NAME) committed for each count, and that the prosecution has proven all the elements for that count. You may find (DEFENDANT'S NAME) guilty of all these counts, none of these counts, or only some of these counts; but for each count your decision must be unanimous.

References

MUJI 1st Instruction

Committee Notes

CR432 should be used in circumstances where the prosecution has presented evidence that the offense may have occurred more times than the prosecution has charged. See, e.g., State v. Alires, 2019 UT App 206. For example, an alleged victim testifies that sexual abuse happened on five occasions and the prosecution charges only three counts of sexual abuse. In addition to CR432, the committee encourages practitioners to specify in the elements instruction the particular act that is the basis for the charge and to use a special verdict form or forms where appropriate to confirm that the jury reached a unanimous verdict.

Committee Amended

06/05/2024

CR440 Entrapment.

You must decide whether the defense of entrapment applies in this case. Under that defense, the defendant is not guilty of an offense if (he)(she) acted because (he)(she) was entrapped into committing the offense. A defendant carries no burden to prove the defense of entrapment. In other words, the defendant is not required to prove the defense of entrapment applies to (his)(her) conduct. Rather, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that entrapment does not apply.

Entrapment occurs when, in order to obtain evidence, a peace officer [or a person directed by or acting in cooperation with the peace officer] induces a person to commit an offense by methods that create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by one not otherwise ready to commit it. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

Many circumstances may affect the defense of entrapment. In considering whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that entrapment does not apply, you should consider the following:

the defendant's reactions to the peace officer's [or peace officer's agent's] inducement, including:
- whether the defendant hesitated when presented with an illegal opportunity and succumbed only to persistent pressure; or
- whether the defendant actively pursued the commission of the crime despite opportunities to withdraw;

whether the case involves:
- improper police conduct where the peace officer [or peace officer's agent] applied persistent pressure or persistently pursued the defendant to commit the offense;
- appeals based on sympathy, pity, close personal friendships, or offers of inordinate sums of money; and

any other circumstances you find helpful in evaluating whether the defendant freely and voluntarily committed the offense.

Keep in mind that not all the listed circumstances will apply in every case, and some cases might have circumstances that are not listed here.

[The defense of entrapment is unavailable when an element of the offense is causing or threatening bodily injury to a person other than a peace officer [or the person directed by or acting in cooperation with the peace officer].]

References

Utah Code sect. 76-2-303
State v. Hernandez, 2020 UT App 58
State v. Hatchett, 2020 UT App 61
State v. Dickerson, 2022 UT App 56
State v. Smith, 2022 UT App 82

Committee Notes

When using this instruction, practitioners should add to the relevant elements instruction a final numbered element stating, "The defense of entrapment does not apply."

Committee Amended

CR444 Pro se Defendant

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that a person charged with a crime has the right to the assistance of counsel. This Constitutional guarantee also provides that an individual charged with a crime has the right to proceed to trial representing himself/herself. In this case the defendant will be representing himself/herself. You are not to let the fact that (DEFENDANT'S NAME) is representing himself/herself influence your decision in this case. Instead, you must decide this case based upon the law in the court's instructions and the evidence received during the course of the trial. When (DEFENDANT'S NAME) is acting as a lawyer in the case, [his] [her] words are not evidence. The rules that govern courtroom proceedings apply equally to both parties in this circumstance.

[(STANDBY COUNSEL'S NAME) has been appointed as standby counsel to the defendant but not to act as his/her attorney. In electing to represent himself/herself, the defendant has assumed the full responsibility of acting as his/her own attorney.]

References

State v. Rohwedder, 2018 UT App. 182 (2018) (Mortensen, J., concurring).
State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987).

MUJI 1st Instruction

Committee Notes

The circumstances involving pro se representation by defendants can vary widely. Depending on the court's pretrial rulings and the legal circumstances, the parties should consider omitting this instruction or making appropriate modifications to this instruction.

This instruction is out for public comment until December 1st, 2023.

Committee Amended