SALT LAKE CITY<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 The Utah Supreme Court sided with a man who fought felony firearm charges by claiming self-defense under a law that went into effect in 2021.<\/p>\n The case in question stems from\u00a0a shooting in 2019.<\/a>\u00a0Jon Michael Clara fired several shots toward a truck with a snowplow that had repeatedly rammed into the SUV he was driving. One of the bullets flew through the cab of a nearby uninvolved vehicle, narrowly missing a child.<\/p>\n A blue truck with a snowplow rammed into an SUV multiple times, spinning it around to face oncoming traffic on Nov. 23, 2019.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Several charges against Clara were dismissed after he made use of a new self-defense law he urged lawmakers to pass. However, in an unusual move, the judge who presided over the case urged prosecutors to appeal his decision. In\u00a0an opinion released Friday<\/a>, Utah\u2019s Supreme Court justices concluded that the district court \u201cdid not err\u201d in its handling of Clara\u2019s case.<\/p>\n HB227<\/a>\u00a0sailed through the Utah legislature in 2021. The law allows people who are charged with a crime and claim self-defense to have a justification hearing before the case goes to trial. If prosecutors cannot disprove a self-defense claim with clear and convincing evidence in that early hearing, the case is permanently dismissed.<\/p>\n That is what happened in Clara\u2019s case in March 2022. Third District Judge Todd Shaughnessy ruled the state had not met its burden of proof, and despite evidence he said \u201ctroubles\u201d him,\u00a0he dismissed the case.<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThis is one instance in which the state can appeal,\u201d Shaughnessy said. \u201cI would encourage the state to do that to seek some clarity on exactly what this new law means. But, as I say, I believe my hands are tied.\u201d<\/p>\n The case is one of several the KSL Investigators followed after first reporting on the\u00a0unintended consequences<\/a>\u00a0of the new law.<\/p>\n During arguments before the Utah Supreme Court in May 2023, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Peterson argued Clara was not acting in self-defense, while defense attorney Ann Taliaferro argued Clara had acted reasonably given the circumstances.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Investigators never determined who was driving the truck, but Clara faced felony firearm charges for shooting at it. Clara said he saw brake lights and feared the driver was turning around to come after him and his passenger again.<\/p>\n \u201cI was just aiming to let him know, if you come back this way, you know, you\u2019re going to get shot,\u201d Clara testified\u00a0during his justification hearing in November 2021.<\/a><\/p>\n Jon Michael Clara (left) and defense attorney Clayton Simms (right) participate in a virtual hearing on March 4, 2022.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cI think this is like every other case that this court and the court of appeals have reviewed where somebody vindictively shot somebody in the back under a theory of, \u2018I\u2019m going to do him before he does me,\u2019 or some species of that or based on previous threats,\u201d Peterson said\u00a0during oral arguments<\/a>\u00a0before the court last year. \u201cPrevious threats are never enough. This court\u2019s case law is very clear about that.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that he may have been shooting and he missed, or he was just shooting to warn them off or to stop the truck from coming back \u2013 I think that\u2019s still absolutely justified,\u201d countered Taliaferro.<\/p>\n In addition to questions about Clara\u2019s case, some justices asked general questions about procedure under the new law and several questions about a scenario in which there is no witness to a murder, the suspect submits a claim of self-defense under the new law, but refuses to testify, which is within their Fifth Amendment right.<\/p>\n Justice Diana Hagen said that scenario represents a potential unintended consequence of HB227.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t know what the legislature intended,\u201d Hagen said, \u201cbut it seems like this could be a consequence, whether intended or not.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think that would make a great movie or crime novel,\u201d Peterson said of the scenario, \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s likely to be a common problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Paige Petersen then shared that the facts in the hypothetical Utah scenario are those of a real case in Florida, challenged under the statute that Utah\u2019s self-defense law is modeled after.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have that in Jefferson v. State in Florida,\u201d Petersen said. \u201cIt\u2019s the exact hypothetical I gave. The defendant gave a story about why he stabbed his roommate. The state had no evidence about what happened in the apartment. And so just based on his story, case dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ksltv.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/DashCamPhoto-1-1024x576.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nUtah\u2019s self-defense law<\/h2>\n
Utah Supreme Court arguments<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ksltv.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Clara_And_Simms-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nUnintended consequences<\/h2>\n