## Facts

- Richard Herrera sold a 1967 Chevrolet van to Gary Alfred Mitcheson’s father; a dispute arose over whether “Mag Wheels” and wider tires were included or only temporarily loaned.
- Herrera and others repeatedly demanded return of the wheels and attempted to remove them at the father’s home; police told them to leave the wheels and resolve the dispute in court.
- On February 6, 1976, Herrera confronted Mitcheson at a drive-in, opened the van door, struck him in the jaw and eye, and threatened him.
- Mitcheson later obtained a rifle and went to his sister Debbie’s home, where the van was located and people were present for a poker game.
- Around 3:30 a.m. on February 7, 1976, Herrera and companions went to Debbie’s house intending to remove the wheels and tires; a loud confrontation developed in the driveway, and they refused to leave when told to do so.
- Mitcheson appeared at or near the doorway holding the rifle and fired a shot that struck Herrera in the neck; Herrera died shortly thereafter.
- At trial, Mitcheson claimed he was protecting the peace and security of the dwelling and that the rifle discharged accidentally.
- The trial court refused to instruct the jury on Utah’s statutory defense of using force in defense of habitation, reasoning that Debbie’s house was not Mitcheson’s “habitation.”
- A jury convicted Mitcheson of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced to five years to life.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant staying as a guest in another’s home is entitled to a jury instruction on the statutory defense of using force in defense of habitation.
2. Whether the trial court may deny a defense-of-habitation instruction because the defendant also claims the shooting was accidental.
3. Whether refusal to give the requested instruction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the defense-of-habitation instruction should have been given because the statutory concept of “habitation” can include a place peacefully occupied as a substitute home, including a guest’s dwelling.
- The court rejected the argument that an “accident” theory barred a defense-of-habitation instruction; the theories were not necessarily inconsistent, and in any event criminal defendants may present alternative or inconsistent defenses.
- The court found sufficient evidence supporting submission of the defense to the jury, including the late-night intrusion, refusal to leave, and escalating commotion outside the residence.
- The omission was prejudicial because the jury was not instructed on a potentially exculpatory statutory defense supported by the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court must instruct the jury on a statutory defense when there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the defense applies.
- For defense-of-habitation purposes, “habitation” is not limited to ownership or permanent residence; it may include premises peacefully occupied as a substitute home, including a guest’s stay.
- In criminal cases, a defendant may request instructions on alternative or even inconsistent defenses when supported by the evidence; the prosecution retains the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Refusal to instruct on a central, evidence-supported defense is reversible error when it may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the jury should have been instructed on the statutory defense of habitation despite the defendant’s guest status in the home and despite his simultaneous claim of accidental discharge; the failure to instruct was prejudicial and required a new trial.


State v. Mitcheson, 560 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1977)