State v. Mitcheson
1977 Utah LEXIS 1057, 560 P.2d 1120 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of habitation even if they are only a guest in another's home, and they are permitted to present this defense even if it is inconsistent with another defense raised, such as accident.
Facts:
- Richard Herrera sold a van with special 'Mag Wheels' to Gary Alfred Mitcheson's father, Alfred Mitcheson.
- A dispute arose over the wheels; the Mitchesons claimed they were part of the sale, while Herrera claimed they were only on loan.
- Herrera and his brother made several unsuccessful attempts to have the wheels returned, and during one attempt at the Mitcheson home, police were called and told the Herreras to settle the matter in court.
- On February 6, 1976, Herrera located Mitcheson in the van, opened the door, struck him, and threatened him.
- A few hours later, the two men agreed to have a fight the following afternoon.
- After the confrontation, Mitcheson went to his father’s house and obtained a rifle.
- In the early morning of February 7, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Mitcheson was at his sister Debbie's home for a poker game.
- Herrera and several friends arrived at Debbie's property with the stated purpose of removing the wheels from the van, which was parked there.
- Debbie told the group to leave her property, but they did not comply, and a commotion ensued, leading Mitcheson to appear in the doorway with the rifle, fire a shot, and kill Herrera.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Alfred Mitcheson was tried for murder in a Utah state trial court.
- At trial, the defense requested a jury instruction on the use of force in the protection of one's habitation.
- The trial court refused to give the requested instruction to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Mitcheson of second-degree murder.
- Mitcheson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Utah, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit a reversible error by refusing to instruct a jury on the defense of habitation on the grounds that the defendant was a guest in another's home and that the defense was inconsistent with the defendant's claim that the shooting was accidental?
Opinions:
Majority - Crockett, Justice
Yes, the trial court erred. A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on a defense supported by the evidence, and this right is not defeated because the location was not the defendant's permanent residence or because the defense is inconsistent with other defenses. The court reasoned that the defense of habitation, rooted in the common law principle that a 'man's home is his castle,' extends beyond a person's actual residence to any place they are peacefully occupying as a substitute home, including as a guest in another's home. Furthermore, in a criminal case, a plea of not guilty entitles the defendant to the benefit of any defense that may create a reasonable doubt, whether the defenses are consistent or not. Therefore, Mitcheson was entitled to an instruction on both defense of habitation and the theory of an accidental shooting, and the trial court's refusal was a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the legal definition of 'habitation' for the purpose of self-defense claims, extending the castle doctrine's protections to individuals in temporary residences or as guests in another's home. It solidifies the principle that criminal defendants are not required to choose a single, consistent theory of defense. By allowing inconsistent defenses (e.g., justification and accident), the court grants defendants greater strategic latitude at trial, ensuring that the jury can consider any and all exculpatory evidence that might raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt.
