State v. Karr

2015 UT App 287

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
ADAM KARR,
Appellant.

Opinion
No. 20130878-CA
Filed November 27, 2015

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable James T. Blanch
No. 121907482

Teresa L. Welch and John B. Plimpton, Attorneys
for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Jeanne B. Inouye, Attorneys
for Appellee

JUDGE JAMES Z. DAVIS authored this Opinion, in which JUDGE
STEPHEN L. ROTH concurred.1 JUDGE J. FREDERIC VOROS JR.
concurred in the result, with opinion, in which JUDGE STEPHEN L.
ROTH concurred in part, with opinion.

DAVIS, Judge:

¶1 Adam Karr appeals from his convictions of murder and
obstruction of justice. We affirm.

1. Judge James Z. Davis participated in this case as a member of
the Utah Court of Appeals. He retired from the court on
November 16, 2015, before this decision issued.
 State v. Karr

BACKGROUND

¶2 Karr’s convictions stem from a fight that occurred during
a party at the home Karr shared with his brother (Brother).2 The
victim (Victim) arrived at the party as a guest of Karr and
Brother’s mutual friend. Victim became increasingly
“obnoxious” and “belligerent” as the night wore on. Karr and
Brother eventually asked Victim to leave, but Victim resisted.
When Victim did leave, he returned minutes later to retrieve the
liquor he brought to the party. While Victim waited for someone
to bring him his liquor, he began making threats against Brother
that Karr overheard. After Victim got his alcohol back, a fight
broke out among Victim, Karr, and Brother during which
Brother restrained Victim while Karr stabbed Victim seven
times. Victim ultimately died from his injuries. Karr was charged
with one count of murder and one count of obstructing justice.

¶3 Karr’s defense at trial centered around his right to use
force to defend his home pursuant to Utah Code section 76-2-
405. The jury received instructions on Karr’s defense of
habitation theory and returned with guilty verdicts. Karr
appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4 Karr raises several arguments on appeal focusing on the
accuracy of the defense of habitation jury instruction. “Claims of
erroneous jury instructions present questions of law that we

2. “In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable
to the verdict.” State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1205 (Utah 1993).

20130878-CA 2 2015 UT App 287
 State v. Karr

review for correctness.” State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, ¶ 16, 243 P.3d
1250.3

ANALYSIS

¶5 Karr argues that the jury instructions undermined the
presumption of reasonableness he was entitled to under the
defense of habitation statute.4 We reject Karr’s argument but

3. We reject the State’s claims that Karr has not adequately
preserved his arguments for our review.

4. Karr also contends that the trial court erroneously “instructed
the jury to determine whether the evidence triggered the
presumption of reasonableness because the court was obligated
to determine that issue itself.” This is not what occurred;
Instruction 36 affirmatively instructed the jury that the
presumption applied. Karr alternatively argues that the trial
court “erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the evidentiary
threshold sufficient to trigger the presumption.” However,
because the court instructed the jury that the presumption
applied, there was no need for the court to also instruct the jury
on the evidentiary threshold necessary to trigger the
presumption. Although we believe the trial court may have
erred by instructing the jury that the presumption applied, see
State v. Patrick, 2009 UT App 226, ¶ 19, 217 P.3d 1150 (explaining
that “the statutory presumption of reasonableness” is
“preclude*d+” by a finding that the victim’s entry was lawful),
the error benefited Karr and accordingly is not a prejudicial error
warranting reversal, see State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239, 1255
(Utah 1988) (“An error is prejudicial only if we conclude that
absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more
favorable outcome for the defendant.”). Karr also discusses at
length the characterization of the defense of habitation as an
(continued<)

20130878-CA 3 2015 UT App 287
 State v. Karr

recognize that the relevant jury instruction, Instruction 36, does
contain errors. Those errors, however, are harmless. See State v.
Young, 853 P.2d 327, 347 (Utah 1993) (“Even if [a] defendant can
show that the instructions given by the trial court were in a
technical sense incorrect, he has [to also] show[] that the
instructions prejudiced him.”). We address each issue in turn.

I. Karr’s Claims of Error Are Without Merit.

¶6 The defense of habitation statute provides,

(1) A person is justified in using force against
another when and to the extent that he reasonably
believes that the force is necessary to prevent or
terminate the other’s unlawful entry into or attack
upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the
use of force which is intended or likely to cause
death or serious bodily injury only if:

(a) the entry is made or attempted in a
violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or
by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the

(