The Supreme Court has two advisory committees, one for civil instructions and one for criminal instructions, working to draft new and amended instructions to conform to Utah law. The Court will not promulgate the instructions in the same manner as it does the rules of procedure and evidence; rather the Court relies on its committees and their subcommittees, consisting of lawyers of varied interests and expertise, to subject the model instructions to a full and open critical appraisal.
The Utah Supreme Court approves this Second Edition of the Model Utah Jury Instructions (MUJI 2d) for use in jury trials. An accurate statement of the law is critical to instructing the jury, but accuracy is meaningless if the statement is not understood - or is misunderstood - by jurors. MUJI 2d is intended to be an accurate statement of the law using simple structure and, where possible, words of ordinary meaning. Using a model instruction, however, is not a guarantee of legal sufficiency. MUJI 2d is a summary statement of Utah law but is not the final expression of the law. In the context of any particular case, the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may review a model instruction.
Sometimes the law itself is unclear. There might be no controlling statutes or cases. The statutes or cases might be incomplete, internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with each other. In such cases, an instruction might have two or more alternatives. The alternatives are different statements of the law based on differing authority. The order of the alternatives does not imply preference.
For civil instructions, MUJI 2d eventually will replace the original MUJI published by the Utah State Bar. MUJI 2d represents the first published compilation of criminal instructions in Utah. This will be a gradual process, and when a revised version appears in MUJI 2d, it replaces the same instructions in MUJI 1st.
MUJI 2d is a continual work in progress, with new and amended instructions being published periodically on the state court web site. Although there is no comment period for jury instructions as there is for rules, we encourage lawyers and judges to share their experience and suggestions with the advisory committees: experience with these model instructions and with instructions that are not yet included here. Judges and lawyers who draft a clearer instruction than is contained in these model instructions should share it with the appropriate committee.
If there is no Utah model instruction, the judge must nevertheless instruct the jury. The judge’s task is to further the jurors’ understanding of the law and their responsibility though accuracy, clarity and simplicity. To assist in this task, links on this page lead to principles for plain-language drafting and to the pattern instructions of some other jurisdictions.
Judges should instruct the jurors at times during the trial when the instruction will most help the jurors. Many instructions historically given at the end of the trial may be given at the beginning or during the trial so that jurors know what to expect. The fact that an instruction is not organized here among the opening instructions does not mean that it cannot be given at the beginning of the trial. Instructions relevant to a particular part of the trial should be given just before that part. A judge might repeat an instruction during or at the end of the trial to help protect the integrity of the process or to help the jurors understand the case and their responsibilities.
When preparing written instructions, judges and lawyers should include the title of the instruction. This information helps jurors organize their deliberation and decision-making. Judges should provide a copy of the written instructions to each juror. This is permitted under the rules of procedure and is a sound practice because it allows each juror to follow the instructions as they are read and to refer to them during deliberations.
MUJI 2d is drafted without using gender-specific pronouns whenever reasonably possible. However, sometimes the simplest, most direct statement requires using pronouns. The criminal committee uses pronouns of both genders as its protocol. In the trial of criminal cases, often there will not be time to edit the instructions to fit the circumstances of a particular case, and the criminal instructions are drafted so that they might be read without further concern for pronoun gender. The civil committee uses masculine pronouns as its protocol. In the trial of civil cases there often is more time to edit the instructions. Further, in civil cases, the parties are not limited to individual males and females but include also government and business entities and multiple parties. Judges and lawyers should replace masculine with feminine or impersonal pronouns to fit the circumstances of the case at hand. Judges and lawyers also are encouraged in civil cases to use party names instead of "the plaintiff" or "the defendant." In these and other circumstances judges and lawyers should edit the instructions to fit the circumstances of the case.