2025 UT App 135
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH PALMER,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20230724-CA
Filed September 5, 2025
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy
No. 221907346
Sarah J. Carlquist, Attorney for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Natalie M. Edmundson,
Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE AMY J. OLIVER authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.
OLIVER, Judge:
¶1 On a summer day, an adult male (Driver) drove past two
teenage boys—Joseph Palmer and a friend (Friend)—who were
walking alongside the road. Driver inexplicably flipped a U-turn,
crossed the center line, and stopped his truck next to the boys. As
Driver attempted to get out of his truck, Palmer fatally shot him
four times with a gun he had been carrying in his backpack.
Palmer was charged in juvenile court with one count of murder
and six additional charges. After the case was transferred to
district court, a jury convicted Palmer on one count of murder,
three counts of felony discharge of a firearm, and one count of
obstructing justice. On appeal, Palmer asserts that the evidence
State v. Palmer
was insufficient to disprove his claim of self-defense. 1 Because we
conclude that the State produced some evidence to disprove
Palmer’s claim of self-defense, we affirm his convictions.
BACKGROUND 2
The Shooting
¶2 At approximately 8 p.m. on July 6, 2021, fifteen-year-old
Palmer and Friend were walking northbound on the sidewalk on
the west side of a residential road near a park. Friend was wearing
a red t-shirt, a red bandana, and slide sandals and was pushing a
red bicycle. Palmer was wearing a white t-shirt and black pants
and carried a backpack. A man who lived in the neighborhood
(Eyewitness) observed Palmer and Friend walking.
¶3 A white truck drove northbound by Palmer and Friend.
After the truck drove by, Palmer and Friend crossed to the east
side of the street and continued walking northbound. The truck
then quickly turned around and “cross[ed] the middle, center of
the street” and drove southbound in the northbound lane until it
stopped in front of Palmer and Friend. Driver was the only
occupant of the truck. When he approached Palmer and Friend,
Driver said, “What’s up, nigger?” At first, Eyewitness believed
that Driver, Palmer, and Friend were “friends,” but he quickly
realized the interaction was not friendly when he saw Driver
1. The claim of self-defense applied only to the murder and felony
discharge of a firearm charges. Palmer does not appeal his
conviction for obstructing justice.
2. “On appeal from a jury trial, we review the record facts in a
light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts
accordingly, and we present conflicting evidence only as
necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Herrera,
2025 UT App 1, n.2,
563 P.3d 416 (cleaned up).
20230724-CA 2
2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
reach out the window to try to open the truck door from the
outside and saw Friend “kick the truck” to stop him. Eyewitness
could tell the three were having a conversation but could not hear
what they were saying. After Friend kicked and placed his palm
on the truck door to keep it closed, Eyewitness observed Palmer,
who was standing toward the bed of the truck, open his backpack
and pull out a gun. Palmer fired four shots in the direction of
Driver; one bullet hit Driver near his left eye, killing him. Palmer
and Friend fled on foot. Approximately twenty seconds elapsed
from the time the truck turned around to when Palmer and Friend
fled.
¶4 Driver’s truck rolled into the nearby park. Several
bystanders tried to help. One bystander (Bystander 1) noticed the
truck was in gear, a lot of broken glass and blood inside the truck,
and Driver still in his seatbelt but slouched over. Another
bystander (Bystander 2) saw the truck roll into the park but did
not see anyone in the driver’s seat. A police officer (Officer)
arrived on scene and found Driver “slumped over into the
passenger seat with blood on his face and the seat.” He also saw
bullet holes in the “driver’s side truck bed area” and in the
windshield with the back window “shot out.” Officer did not find
a gun or any weapons in the truck.
¶5 After Palmer fired the shots, he and Friend ran toward
Friend’s house. Eyewitness followed them and called the police.
Palmer and Friend entered the house through the front door.
Friend changed his shirt, and Palmer took his shirt off. Palmer and
Friend went into the backyard, where Palmer repeatedly called
his girlfriend because he wanted her to pick him up. Palmer also
texted his girlfriend, “They’re everywhere” and “I’m fucked.”
Palmer jumped over the fence in Friend’s backyard and hid in a
driveway in front of a truck. A neighbor (Neighbor) observed
Palmer place something underneath the truck. When officers
arrived, they found Palmer sitting in front of the truck with his
backpack and found a 9-mm handgun wrapped in a white shirt
20230724-CA 3 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
under the truck. Palmer and Friend were arrested and taken to a
police station for questioning. In their interviews, both Palmer
and Friend denied knowing anything about the shooting.
The Investigation
¶6 A forensic scientist (Forensic Scientist) processed Driver’s
truck for prints and DNA. Three latent prints were pulled from
the outside of the driver’s side door. One of the prints belonged
to Driver, and one print belonged to Friend. The print belonging
to Friend was a partial palmprint that was pulled from the outside
of the driver’s side door just between the window and door
handle. The third print was not identified.
¶7 The medical examiner (Medical Examiner) completed an
autopsy of Driver that revealed Driver died from a single gunshot
wound that entered near his left eye and exited out of the right
back of his head. At the time of his death, Driver’s blood alcohol
content was .11, more than double the legal limit, and he also had
benzocaine, “a byproduct of cocaine” in his system. Medical
Examiner estimated Driver had used cocaine within two hours
before his death.
The Charges and Juvenile Court Proceedings
¶8 Palmer was initially charged in juvenile court with one
count of murder, three counts of felony discharge of a firearm, one
count of obstructing justice, one count of possession by a minor of
a handgun, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.
The State moved to transfer the case to district court, and after a
four-day evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court granted the
motion. In district court, the case proceeded to trial on one count
of murder, three counts of felony discharge of a firearm, and one
count of obstructing justice.
20230724-CA 4 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
The Trial
¶9 The State called multiple witnesses, including Eyewitness,
Bystander 1, Bystander 2, Officer, Neighbor, the crime scene
investigator (Investigator), Forensic Scientist, Medical Examiner,
a firearms forensic scientist (Firearms Expert), and a detective
(Detective). Bystander 1, Bystander 2, Officer, Neighbor, and
Forensic Scientist testified as described above.
¶10 Eyewitness testified that he was standing between fortyfive and sixty feet away when he saw Driver pull up to Palmer
and Friend. Eyewitness testified that when Driver pulled up,
Friend was closest to the driver’s side door, and Palmer was
standing closer to the truck bed. Eyewitness did not see Driver
with a gun or weapon and did not see him lean over or reach for
anything in the truck. He also testified that Palmer did not rack
the gun before shooting.
¶11 Investigator discussed retrieving the gun from under the
truck next to where Palmer was hiding. Investigator also testified
that a red bicycle, slide shoes, and four spent 9mm casings were
found near the site of the shooting. Investigator examined
Driver’s truck and noted that the “back driver’s side window . . .
was broken out” and there were two defects in the front
windshield.
¶12 Medical Examiner testified to Driver’s cause of death and
levels of intoxication as described above. On cross-examination,
Medical Examiner agreed cocaine and alcohol could “possibly”
contribute to a person’s willingness to engage in aggressive
behavior and could induce violent behavior, but he testified he
would not expect violent behavior at Driver’s level of intoxication.
¶13 Firearms Expert evaluated the gun and testified that the
only part of the gun that was not functioning properly was the
magazine safety, which would allow the gun to be fired even
without a magazine. Firearms Expert also testified that two bullet
20230724-CA 5 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
samples and the four cartridge casings found at the scene of the
shooting had been fired from the gun that Investigator retrieved
from under the truck where Palmer was hiding.
¶14 During Detective’s testimony, the State played surveillance
footage from several sources that captured the events
immediately before and after the shooting. The footage included
the truck making a U-turn to approach Palmer and Friend, Palmer
and Friend running to Friend’s house after the shooting, and
Palmer jumping the fence in Friend’s backyard. Detective also
testified about the text messages and calls from Palmer to his
girlfriend after the shooting, and about texts between Palmer and
his aunt indicating that Palmer was attempting to obtain a firearm
a month before the shooting.
¶15 After the State’s case-in-chief, the defense called two
witnesses, Friend and Palmer. Friend testified that when he and
Palmer were walking northbound, Driver passed them “in an
aggressive manner,” stared at them with “malic[ious] intent,” and
asked them if they “were part of a gang,” which concerned Friend
and Palmer. Friend further testified that after Driver passed them,
he made a U-turn and drove on the wrong side of the road before
stopping in front of Friend and Palmer. This made Friend very
concerned Driver was going to shoot them in a drive-by or
otherwise confront them.
¶16 Friend testified that when Driver stopped in front of them,
Friend was standing by the front wheelbase and, contrary to the
scene as Eyewitness described it, Palmer was standing behind
Friend toward the front of the truck. Friend stated that after
Driver stopped in front of them, Driver called them “racial slurs”
and asked them if they “wanted to die.” Friend said he did not
think Driver was joking, and feared his life was in danger because
Driver was going to get a “gun or a knife or any weapon.” Friend
testified that when Driver tried to open the door, Friend “put [his]
hand and [his] foot” “against the door, to close it.” Friend also
20230724-CA 6 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
testified that when Palmer shot Driver, Driver was reaching down
for something which Friend believed would be a weapon. Friend
explained that he began running after Palmer fired the shots. He
said that Palmer soon caught up to him, and they went to Friend’s
house. Friend testified that he lied during his police interview
when he said he did not know anything about the shooting and
did so because he did not trust the police.
¶17 On cross-examination, Friend admitted he lied to the
lieutenant who interviewed him earlier that morning 3 when he
said that he and Palmer were trying to play basketball in the park,
which had no basketball courts. The State also had Friend look at
a diagram he drew during his meeting that morning of where he
and Palmer were standing when the shooting occurred. On the
diagram, Friend had marked that he was closer to the driver door
of the truck and Palmer was closer to the back of the truck,
contrary to his testimony given during direct examination. On
redirect, Friend testified that at first Palmer was standing behind
him but that he did not really see where Palmer was standing
when he fired for the first time.
¶18 Palmer testified in his own defense. He testified that at the
time of the shooting, he was “off and on” “homeless” and would
often sleep on his grandmother’s living room couch because his
father had passed away and his mother “was a drug addict.”
Palmer testified that he and Friend were going to play basketball
but admitted neither of them had a basketball with them. Palmer
testified that as he and Friend were walking down the street,
Driver drove by them and looked back toward them, which
concerned him because a few days earlier a car drove by him and
a different friend and then turned around and shot at them. So
when Driver made a U-turn and drove on the wrong side of the
3. Friend was interviewed by the State the morning he testified
because defense counsel received Friend’s contact information
only the night before.
20230724-CA 7 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
street toward them, Palmer’s “first instinct was to prepare”
himself by taking the backpack that had his gun in it off his
shoulder. Palmer testified that he knew he was not supposed to
have a gun but had one to protect himself. According to Palmer,
when the truck approached them, Driver was “hanging out” of
the truck with his head “almost out the window,” and Palmer was
scared Driver was going to shoot them or hit them with the truck.
¶19 Palmer testified that when the truck stopped, he was
standing by the truck’s front bumper and Friend was standing
two to three feet in front of him and closer to the driver door.
Palmer said that when Driver stopped, he asked them if they were
in a gang and if they wanted to die. Palmer said he was in shock
and “just froze” until he saw Driver reach for something he
believed was a gun or weapon, and when Driver came back up,
Palmer shot at him “until [Palmer] felt [he] was safe.” Palmer
explained that once he started shooting, the truck began to lurch
forward, but he kept firing until the truck was going away from
him. Palmer said he then started running toward Friend’s house.
Palmer testified that when he got to Friends’s house, he changed
his clothes, called his girlfriend to pick him up, and tried to get rid
of the gun because he was scared, did not know what to do, and
did not want to get in trouble. Palmer admitted that when he was
arrested, he lied to the police about his involvement in the
shooting because he “didn’t trust them” and did not think they
would believe him.
¶20 During cross-examination, Palmer testified that he had
never seen Driver or his truck before. He reiterated that he
obtained a gun for protection because he had been shot at on
several occasions, including two days prior to the confrontation
with Driver. Palmer explained he did not report that incident to
the police, but he believed he had reported a different incident to
the police in the past. On redirect, Palmer testified that the whole
incident occurred extremely fast and he did not have time to
20230724-CA 8 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
process anything or think about what would happen based on
different actions he could take.
¶21 After the defense rested, the court read a stipulation to the
jury that the Salt Lake Metro Gang Unit determined that Driver,
Palmer, and Friend were not gang associates or members. The
court then read the jury instructions, which included instructions
on perfect self-defense, imperfect self-defense, and the special
mitigation defense of extreme emotional distress.
¶22 In closing, the State argued that it had met its burden of
disproving both perfect and imperfect self-defense beyond a
reasonable doubt: “[Driver] did not have a weapon. The car was
at a standstill. It was not going to run over anybody. In fact,
[Driver] was still in his seat belt. There is no way that self-defense
or defense of others applies.” The State concluded by arguing
there was “no evidence to support a reasonable belief that
[Palmer] could use lethal force in defense of himself or” Friend.
¶23 During the defense’s closing, defense counsel (Counsel)
reminded the jury that Palmer was the victim of a drive-by
shooting two days before the encounter with Driver and,
therefore, was rightfully terrified when an adult stranger who
was under the influence of alcohol and drugs, drove by while
staring at him, and then flipped a U-turn to come back and
confront him and Friend. Counsel continued that Driver had no
reason to drive up to Palmer and Friend and that the situation
would be frightening for any fifteen-year-old. Counsel argued the
jury should believe Friend’s testimony because his palm print on
the door frame was exactly where one would expect a palm print
to be if someone was trying to prevent a door from opening.
Counsel further argued that Palmer’s actions were “consistent
with preventing what appeared to be an aggravated assault,”
Palmer had the “right to defend himself and to use deadly force
to prevent an aggravated assault,” and it did not matter that
Driver did not actually have a weapon.
20230724-CA 9 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
¶24 During the State’s rebuttal closing, the prosecutor
encouraged the jury to question Palmer’s and Friend’s credibility
because they both admitted they had lied to the police, and both
had “skin in the game,” unlike the State’s witnesses. 4 The State
further argued the physical evidence was consistent with
Eyewitness’s testimony about where Palmer was standing near
the truck. The State reiterated that the evidence did not support
self-defense because there was “no imminent use of unlawful
force,” “[n]o gun,” and “no necessity to prevent death or serious
bodily injury, because [there was] no threat of it.” The State
concluded that it was unreasonable for Palmer to believe it was
necessary to use lethal force on Driver.
¶25 After the jury began deliberating, the State pointed out that
Counsel had reserved his directed verdict motion but never “got
around to making the motion.” The court allowed Counsel to
move for a directed verdict before the jury returned with its
verdict. The court denied the motion.
¶26 The jury convicted Palmer as charged and found the State
disproved Palmer’s claims of perfect and imperfect self-defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Palmer was sentenced to fifteen years
to life in prison for the murder conviction, three years to life for
each of the felony discharge convictions, and one to fifteen years
for the obstructing justice conviction. The court ordered the
sentences to run concurrently.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶27 Palmer asserts the district court erred in denying his
motion for a directed verdict because the State did not produce
sufficient evidence to disprove his perfect self-defense claim.
Alternatively, Palmer asks this court to reverse his murder
conviction and enter a conviction for manslaughter because the
4. Friend was adjudicated in juvenile court for obstructing justice.
20230724-CA 10 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
State did not produce sufficient evidence to disprove his
imperfect self-defense claim. This court reviews a “district court’s
denial of a motion for directed verdict for correctness.” State v.
Dever, 2022 UT App 35, ¶ 29,
508 P.3d 158 (cleaned up). “However,
where a defendant challenges the denial of a motion for a directed
verdict based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the applicable
standard of review is highly deferential” to the jury verdict.
Id.
(cleaned up). “We will uphold the district court’s denial if, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the State, some evidence
exists from which” the State could prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Id. (cleaned
up).
ANALYSIS
¶28 Palmer “must overcome a substantial burden on appeal to
show that the [district] court erred in denying [his] motion for
directed verdict.” State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27,
345 P.3d 1168.
Specifically, Palmer must show that, “when viewed in the light
most favorable to the State, no evidence existed from which a
reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that
[Palmer] did not act in self-defense.”
Id.
¶29 Utah law permits an individual to use
force intended or likely to cause death or serious
bodily injury only if the individual reasonably
believes that force is necessary to prevent death or
serious bodily injury to the individual or another
individual as a result of imminent use of unlawful
force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible
felony.
Utah Code § 76-2-402(2)(b). “Self-defense may be perfect or
imperfect.” State v. Silva, 2019 UT 36, ¶ 25,
456 P.3d 718. When a
defendant raises a claim of either perfect or imperfect self-defense,
20230724-CA 11
2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
“the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the killing was not in self-defense.” State v. Knoll, 712
P.2d 211, 214 (Utah 1985). If the prosecution fails to disprove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was in self-defense, the
defendant is either entitled to an acquittal or a reduction of the
murder charge to manslaughter depending on whether the
criteria for perfect or imperfect self-defense are satisfied. See id.;
State v. Henfling,
2020 UT App 129, ¶ 39,
474 P.3d 994.
¶30 The only difference between perfect self-defense and
imperfect self-defense claims is that to succeed on an imperfect
self-defense claim, a defendant need not “show that the use of
deadly force was legally justifiable under the circumstances.”
Silva,
2019 UT 36, ¶ 26. In other words, “[p]erfect self-defense
requires that a defendant’s belief that force is necessary be both
reasonable and legally justified. Imperfect self-defense,
meanwhile, requires only that the defendant’s belief be
reasonable.” Id. ¶ 29. Because “[i]mperfect self-defense is a strict
subset of perfect self-defense,” if the State has presented some
evidence from which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt
that imperfect self-defense does not apply, then the State has
necessarily presented some evidence that perfect self-defense also
does not apply. Id. ¶ 24.
¶31 Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the State, we conclude that the State presented some evidence that
Palmer could not reasonably believe lethal force was necessary
during his interaction with Driver. Although Palmer and Friend
both testified they were in fear for their lives and Palmer acted in
self-defense, the State presented evidence to undermine both
Palmer’s and Friend’s credibility. First, though Palmer and Friend
both testified that Driver asked them if they wanted to die, no
other witness could corroborate this statement. Eyewitness—the
only other person to observe the exchange—testified that he could
not hear the words spoken between Driver, Friend, and Palmer.
20230724-CA 12
2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
¶32 Next, the jury heard evidence countering Palmer’s and
Friend’s testimony that Driver was reaching for a weapon. First,
Eyewitness testified that he did not see Driver with a gun or other
weapon and did not see him lean over to grab anything in the
truck. Second, Palmer testified that Driver was “hanging out” of
the truck window with his head “almost out the window,” which
is inconsistent with a person reaching down for a weapon. Third,
Eyewitness testified that Driver was trying to open the door from
the outside, which is also difficult to reconcile with reaching in the
truck for a weapon.
¶33 And, importantly, neither Palmer nor Friend ever told the
police they feared for their lives and acted in self-defense. Indeed,
instead of telling the police during their post-arrest interviews
they were scared of Driver and that Palmer shot him in self-defense, both Palmer and Friend denied knowing anything about
the shooting. But at trial, they both admitted they lied to the police
in those interviews and Palmer acknowledged he never told the
police that he was afraid of Driver, that he saw Driver reaching
for a weapon, or that he believed he needed to act in self-defense.
The first time he said he acted in self-defense was during his
testimony at trial.
¶34 Lastly, the State presented evidence to undermine both
Palmer’s and Friend’s credibility generally, including: (1)
pointing out that Palmer’s and Friend’s trial testimony about
where they were standing when Palmer fired the gun conflicted
with the testimony of Eyewitness, the physical evidence, and the
diagram Friend drew the morning before he testified; (2)
impeaching Friend with discrepancies between his trial testimony
and his interview with the State earlier the same morning; (3)
impeaching Friend and Palmer’s story about wanting to play
basketball with the fact that there were no basketball courts at the
park and neither of them had a basketball with them; (4)
reminding the jury that both Palmer and Friend lied in their initial
interviews with the police; and (5) stating that Palmer’s and
20230724-CA 13 2025 UT App 135
State v. Palmer
Friend’s actions of running and changing clothes after the
shooting showed consciousness of guilt.
¶35 Ultimately, the “jury is the exclusive judge of credibility.”
Utah Code § 78B-1-128(4). And the jury could have chosen to
discredit the self-defense testimony from Palmer and Friend due
to the State’s evidence. See State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401, 404 (Utah
1986) (per curiam) (“The jury need not accept the version [of the
facts] advanced by the defendant, but may weigh the evidence
and draw its own conclusions and inferences as to his conduct and
intent.”).
¶36 Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, we conclude the State met its burden by presenting
“some evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that
[Palmer] did not act in self-defense.” State v. Doyle,
2018 UT App
239, ¶ 28,
437 P.3d 1266 (cleaned up). Thus, the district court did
not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.
CONCLUSION
¶37 Because the State produced some evidence from which a
reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Palmer
did not act in self-defense, Palmer has not met his burden of
demonstrating the district court erred in denying his motion for a
directed verdict. We affirm his convictions.
20230724-CA 14 2025 UT App 135