context: Here, only Pearson's mental state was disputed at trial. The jury had the opportunity to convict Pearson of either aggravated murder, which requires knowing or intentional killing, or simple murder, which in the case of killing a peace officer requires only recklessness. Because the jury chose to convict for aggravated murder, the court's refusal to give an instruction on manslaughter, an offense requiring recklessness, constituted at most harmless error.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 685 P.2d 551, 555-56
citation_a.parenthetical: reversing conviction for assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury where defendant's request for instruction on lesser included offense of simple assault was refused and jury was thus forced to choose between conviction and acquittal
citation_a.sentence: But see State v. Oldroyd, 685 P.2d 551, 555-56 (Utah 1984) (reversing conviction for assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury where defendant’s request for instruction on lesser included offense of simple assault was refused and jury was thus forced to choose between conviction and acquittal).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 782 P.2d 459, 464
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that where jury had opportunity to convict defendant of manslaughter but convicted of greater offense of second degree murder, refusing to give instruction on negligent homicide was, if error, harmless
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Gotschall, 782 P.2d 459, 464 (Utah 1989) (holding that where jury had opportunity to convict defendant of manslaughter but convicted of greater offense of second degree murder, refusing to give instruction on negligent homicide was, if error, harmless).