State v. Martinez

2026 UT App 171 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. DANIEL MARTINEZ, Appellant. Opinion No. 20240889-CA Filed November 5, 2026 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Linda M. Jones No. 221903840 Sarah J. Carlquist, Attorney for Appellant Derek E. Brown and Tera J. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE DAVID N. MORTENSEN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES RYAN D. TENNEY and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred. MORTENSEN, Judge: ¶1 Daniel Martinez was upset that a house party had been broken up early by a displeased Airbnb property manager. After exiting the house, Martinez hurled full beer bottles into the street and in the direction of a parked Tesla. Annoyed, the Tesla’s owner asked Martinez, relatively nicely, to stop. Instead, more bottles were thrown, which led Martinez and the Tesla owner to exchange reciprocal profane insults. Martinez asked a nearby friend for the friend’s pistol, whereupon Martinez—essentially skipping along the way—emptied the pistol’s magazine in the direction of the Tesla, killing its owner and Martinez’s cousin, who was in the line of fire by happenstance. Now convicted by a jury on two counts of aggravated murder, Martinez claims that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to disprove beyond  State v. Martinez a reasonable doubt his self-defense theories. We affirm the convictions. BACKGROUND 1 The Shooting ¶2 In April 2022, seventeen-year-old Martinez, his cousin Jeff, and their friends Earl and Gene spent an evening searching for a party to attend. 2 Gene drove the group around, and Jeff, who was of age, purchased two cases of beer for them. The group initially planned to meet up with three other friends—Derrick, Evan, and Henry—but the party they were heading to was already over by the time they arrived. Instead, they parked at a city overlook to take in the view, drink beer, and smoke marijuana. While hanging out there, they found out about a different party that Derrick, Evan, and Henry were planning to attend. Notably, both Earl and Gene brought handguns with them that night, though Gene decided to give his gun over to Jeff to help him “feel safer.” ¶3 Around midnight, Gene drove the group to the party. The event was very crowded, making it difficult to park, but he eventually managed to find a spot nearby. As they went inside, Martinez and Earl each carried a case of beer. ¶4 The party didn’t last long. The house that hosted the gathering was an Airbnb rental, and after receiving noise 1. “On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly. We present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 2, 10 P.3d 346 (cleaned up). 2. With the exception of Martinez, we employ pseudonyms for all those mentioned in this opinion. 20240889-CA 2 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez complaints, the property manager arrived and informed the renter that parties were prohibited and that everyone needed to leave. The home’s doorbell camera captured the partygoers filing out of the house. As relevant here, Martinez was seen leaving with a case of beer, closely followed by Earl carrying the second case. On his way out, Martinez directed an insult at the manager, calling him a “white n***a ass.” Gene was also recorded leaving the house while talking on his cellphone with his girlfriend, Josie. Jeff, however, was not captured on the video footage, suggesting he had left the party earlier. ¶5 Outside on the street, a crowd of about twenty to thirty people loitered as they slowly made their way to their vehicles. Gene, who was still on the phone with Josie, stood chatting with Derrick, Evan, and Henry near Derrick’s car. Martinez and Earl were hanging out together nearby when Martinez began throwing “bottles up in the sky or down at the ground and all around, just aimlessly, recklessly.” ¶6 Troubled by this behavior, Gene and Derrick questioned Earl about the situation and urged him to get Martinez to stop. Instead of dialing his behavior back, Martinez threw a bottle toward a Tesla parked near Derrick’s car. The Tesla driver, Alex, “polite[ly]” requested that Martinez be careful around his vehicle: “Hey, man, can you stop? You know, my car.” But Martinez angrily responded, “No, fuck you,” and launched another bottle “directly at him or his car.” Martinez “continuously” refused to stop and was “angry the entire time.” In response to the aggression, Alex cursed back at Martinez multiple times, saying, “Fuck you.” ¶7 This prompted Martinez to escalate the confrontation by making “gestures” and saying that “he would fuck him up.” An “agitated” Martinez “turned around and walked towards [Earl].” Alex retreated to his car, got into the driver seat, and buckled himself in. Martinez turned back toward the Tesla and yelled again. Then Martinez turned back toward Earl and asked Earl for 20240889-CA 3 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez his gun, which Earl handed to him. Gene overheard Martinez say to Earl, “I saw a beam. Let me see your shit.” Martinez then racked the gun twice, sprinted toward the Tesla in a skipping motion, and rapidly fired ten shots. ¶8 The gunfire resulted in two fatalities. One of the bullets pierced the Tesla’s windshield and struck Alex in the chest, killing him. Another bullet struck Jeff in the back of the head while he was walking on the sidewalk behind the Tesla. He was transported to the hospital, but he ultimately died from his injuries. ¶9 Following the shooting, Martinez and Earl sprinted toward Derrick’s car, with Martinez “waving” the gun around. Martinez demanded to be let inside, but Derrick adamantly refused, telling them, “No, no, no, get the fuck out.” Martinez aimed the weapon at Derrick and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun was empty and failed to discharge. Despite Derrick’s objections, Martinez and Earl “forced themselves” into the vehicle. Derrick drove a short distance before abruptly slamming on the brakes and ordering the pair “to get the fuck . . . out of [his] car.” Martinez and Earl finally exited the vehicle, allowing Derrick to quickly drive away from the scene. ¶10 Meanwhile, Gene went to his car, got in, and started the engine. Earl and Martinez then climbed inside, with Martinez declaring, “I still have the gun, drive.” As they fled the neighborhood, Gene repeatedly asked, “Where is [Jeff]?” In contrast to Gene’s concern, Martinez and Earl were laughing and high-fiving one another. After a short distance, Gene stopped the car and angrily demanded that the two get out. “They hesitated at first, but then they got out,” with Martinez taking the gun with him. Throughout this entire time, Gene had remained on the phone with Josie. ¶11 During their investigation of the crime scene, police discovered that the Tesla had sustained extensive damage, with 20240889-CA 4 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez bullet holes riddling it inside and out. Additionally, investigators recovered a Beretta handgun equipped with a red laser sight lying on the driver side floorboard of the Tesla. ¶12 During Alex’s autopsy, the medical examiner noted that Alex had sustained “punctate abrasions”—which are “little tears in the skin”—on his abdomen and the backs of both of his hands. Such injuries frequently accompany gunshot wounds when a bullet shatters an intermediary object, transferring energy to the fragments and embedding them into the victim’s skin. In this incident, the abrasions were caused by shattered glass from the Tesla’s windshield. Based on the presence of punctate abrasions on the back of Alex’s hands, the medical examiner concluded that he was sitting in the driver seat with the back of his hands facing the windshield at the exact moment he was struck by the gunfire. ¶13 When questioned by detectives, Martinez provided multiple conflicting accounts of what occurred at the party. In his initial statement, Martinez claimed he arrived with only Jeff at about 10:30 p.m. He stated that when the party was shut down, people were mad and making “a big old commotion” out in the street but that he and Jeff walked directly toward his car before getting separated. ¶14 Martinez quickly changed this story to introduce Earl into the account, who, Martinez said, had driven them to the party. He again revised his narrative to say that “as soon as [he] heard” the party was not authorized, he told Jeff that it was “time to leave” and the three walked toward the car together, when Jeff suddenly disappeared, leading Martinez and Earl to return to Earl’s house and sleep. ¶15 His story continued to evolve as he added new details, stating that he specifically went to the car to check if Jeff was asleep inside and that he and Earl even drove past the party to look for him. 20240889-CA 5 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez ¶16 When detectives asked about the “commotion,” Martinez said it was “on the other side of the road,” that he was not part of it, and that he “was just trying to go home.” But when asked why he left, Martinez introduced a crucial new detail: “Cause of course, gunshots are going off.” He also said people were arguing and throwing beer bottles. Martinez initially denied throwing any bottles himself, but after detectives brought up the possibility of fingerprint evidence, he confessed to throwing at least one bottle into the road. He attempted to shift the bulk of the blame to Earl, claiming Earl threw “a lot” of them. ¶17 When the subject of firearms came up, Martinez insisted that he never carried a gun, but he asserted that Earl, Jeff, and Gene all carried weapons. Around this point, Martinez altered his story again to place Gene at the party. He also finally admitted that he was “part” of the street commotion and was throwing beer bottles, saying that other people were confronting him and telling him, “Come do that shit over here.” But he denied being the shooter, instead suggesting that either Earl or Gene fired the shots. ¶18 In yet another version of the events, Martinez admitted that he and Earl were both throwing bottles and were challenged by others, which culminated in someone pulling out a gun and pointing it “straight at [Earl],” after which “they just started firing at each other.” The Proceedings ¶19 Martinez was charged with two counts of aggravated murder. At trial, witnesses testified consistently with the events as described above. We recount relevant portions of the testimony in our summary of the proceedings. ¶20 In the opening statement, defense counsel claimed that before shooting, Martinez was “being painted by a laser on a pistol” and “had mere milliseconds to react.” While Martinez 20240889-CA 6 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez admitted that he was the one who killed Alex and Jeff, defense counsel argued that he acted in self-defense because “he believed that he and his friends’ lives were in danger or facing serious bodily injury,” giving him “the right to act.” ¶21 Gene testified that he had a “good view of [what was] happening right in front of [him].” He observed that Martinez was visibly angry the entire time, yelling as he left the porch and aggressively threatening Alex with “gestures” and saying that “he would fuck him up.” Gene testified that when Martinez initially turned toward Earl, he showed no signs of being afraid or threatened. However, Gene said that upon turning back a second time, Martinez demanded a weapon from Earl, claiming, “I saw a beam. Let me see your shit,” which prompted Earl to hand Martinez the gun. Gene stated that he never saw Alex with a weapon and that he did not see any laser pointers, red lasers, or evidence of anyone else firing a gun. Gene said that when he confronted Martinez about the shooting afterward, Martinez asserted, “I don’t know what the fuck you expected me to do, I saw a beam. I saw a beam.” Ultimately, Gene testified that he had no idea why Martinez was so angry and could not “see any reason why [Martinez] did what he did.” ¶22 Derrick testified that he had an “unobstructed view of what was happening in the street.” He described Martinez as being angry and acting as the aggressor during the incident. Derrick also stated that he did not see Alex with a weapon and that he did not observe any red dots or lasers. In fact, Derrick stated that Martinez was the only person he saw making threats or holding a weapon. Derrick further noted that he never heard Martinez mention anything about someone else having a weapon or “beaming him.” ¶23 Evan testified that he was standing outside of Derrick’s vehicle, simply observing the events as they unfolded. He stated that he did not see Alex holding a weapon and that he did not observe any type of laser or laser light. 20240889-CA 7 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez ¶24 Josie, Gene’s girlfriend, testified that she was on the phone with Gene as he left the party and remained on the line while the shooting occurred and as Gene drove away. She stated that she heard gunshots over the phone, followed by the sound of other people getting into Gene’s vehicle. She also heard two people “laughing and making jokes,” saying, “Oh, my God, I can’t believe that we just shot them.” Because she was very familiar with Earl, Josie was able to recognize his laugh, though she did not recognize the voice of the second person. Eventually, Josie said that she heard Gene shouting at the passengers to get out of his car. ¶25 After the State concluded its case, Martinez’s counsel moved for a directed verdict, arguing, as relevant here, that the State had not “shown sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that—or that a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Martinez] was not acting in self-defense or in imperfect self- defense.” The district court denied the motion, explaining, “[T]here have been several witnesses who have testified that they saw no evidence that evening that [Alex] initiated an aggression, no evidence of a laser pointed at . . . Martinez. No evidence of a threat to . . . Martinez. Consequently, the issue of self-defense and imperfect self-defense are jury questions based on the totality of the circumstances, the circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences and the facts that have been presented up to this stage.” The court concluded that “the State [had] produced believable evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of two counts, aggravated murder, [had] been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” ¶26 After the district court denied his directed-verdict motion, Martinez put on his own evidence, largely through his own testimony, which we recount as relevant here. ¶27 Martinez testified that he fired toward the Tesla because he spotted a laser beam aimed at his body and “thought [his] life was in danger.” While he acknowledged throwing beer bottles into the 20240889-CA 8 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez street, he denied throwing them directly at the Tesla. Martinez stated that when Alex and a couple of others told him to stop, he “just walked away” and “didn’t pay attention to them.” ¶28 However, Martinez also conceded that he and Alex did end up exchanging words regarding the bottle-throwing. He admitted that he told Alex “to f-off” in response to his request to stop throwing bottles. He testified, “I kind of just ignored him and then . . . I popped off another one and then he said something and we just started arguing.” Martinez explained that he was “not going to do what [Alex] told [him] to do.” During their argument, Martinez said that he noticed a “green” laser beam shining from the Tesla onto his midsection. 3 Although he had never been targeted with a laser-sighted firearm in the past, he assumed the laser was a gun sight based on his experience playing video games. But Martinez admitted that he did not see a gun and that he “just saw a laser.” ¶29 Martinez said that after noticing the laser, he initially turned away and walked past Earl without mentioning the laser to him. Although he recognized the laser as a warning to take cover to avoid getting shot, he admitted that he made no effort to take evasive action. Rather than attempting to calm the situation, he turned back to face the Tesla, gestured at Alex, and continued shouting. ¶30 Martinez stated that he then saw “the laser was still pointed at [him] so [he] just acted on . . . instincts,” turning his back, putting down his case of beer, and asking Earl for his gun. He then advanced directly toward the Tesla and fired shots through the driver-side windshield. Martinez explained that his “hopping and skipping” movements were his “attempt to be evasive or avoid being hit” because he “believed that [Alex] was going to shoot through his own windshield to stop [Martinez] from breaking bottles.” He further justified his decision to 3. The laser on the Beretta found in the Tesla was red. 20240889-CA 9 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez confront the alleged threat head-on by stating that video games had taught him that walking toward danger is how you eliminate it. ¶31 Martinez denied allegations that he had tried to shoot Derrick, as well as claims that he celebrated by laughing and high- fiving Earl after the incident. He asserted that he lied during his police interview because he was not ready to take responsibility or face the consequences of his actions. Martinez admitted to giving law enforcement several conflicting stories, which included falsely naming his “loyal” friend Earl as the shooter. ¶32 After resting his case, Martinez did not make another directed-verdict motion. The jury was instructed, as relevant on appeal, on perfect and imperfect self-defense and ultimately found Martinez guilty on both counts of aggravated murder. 4 It also concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that imperfect self-defense did not apply to either murder. ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶33 Martinez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence to disprove his claims of perfect and imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. “We review the denial of a motion for a directed verdict for correctness. But when 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], and 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 elements of the crime could be proven beyond a reasonable 4. Martinez does not allege on appeal that the instructions were defective. 20240889-CA 10 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez doubt.” State v. Meguerditchian, 2026 UT App 73, ¶ 21, 591 P.3d 765 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 594 P.3d 1084 (Utah 2026). 5 5. The State asserts that this issue is unpreserved, arguing that after Martinez’s motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the State’s case was denied, he proceeded to present his own case, which “changed” the “evidentiary landscape” and caused the State to “adjust[]” its theory of the case to counter the evidence he presented to support his claim of self-defense. And the State argues that because Martinez’s defense evidence was never considered in denying the directed verdict motion, the district “court had no opportunity to rule on the arguments Martinez now raises for the first time on appeal.” We recognize that there is some tension in our caselaw about how to approach this type of situation. Compare State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, ¶ 41, 369 P.3d 103 (“If the defendant moves for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, and if, as often happens, the court denies the motion, the defendant may call defense witnesses, after which the State may call rebuttal witnesses. The question is whether the appellate court may consider this post-motion evidence in reviewing the trial court’s denial of the motion.”), with State v. Kihlstrom, 1999 UT App 289, ¶ 9, 988 P.2d 949 (“[Our] review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its case- in-chief. Specifically, the evidence presented by [the] defendant in his case, and that brought out by the prosecution in cross- examination and in its rebuttal case, are not relevant to our inquiry.”). While we would welcome further briefing on this dynamic in some future case, we find no occasion to resolve this tension in this case. Even if Martinez’s argument is treated as preserved, and even if we can consider the defense evidence, his arguments still fail. On this record, we need not squint so hard as to differentiate among the evidence in the State’s case-in-chief, the evidence introduced in the defense case that supports the State’s case, and (continued…) 20240889-CA 11 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez ANALYSIS I. Perfect Self-Defense ¶34 Martinez contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to disprove his perfect self-defense claim. More specifically, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to disprove the reasonableness of his belief that Alex “activating and pointing a laser-sighted pistol at him constituted an imminent and unlawful threat of harm” and that “defensive force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.” ¶35 Under Utah law, An individual is justified in using 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). Accordingly, self-defense applies when a person (1) “reasonably believes” that (2) serious unlawful harm is “imminent” and that (3) defensive force is “necessary” to prevent that harm. See id. A person’s reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary has an objective component, including circumstances such as the “nature” and “immediacy” of the the evidence in the defense case that supports only Martinez’s legal argument. This is so because even if we consider the totality of the evidence in the record, sufficient evidence exists to sustain the denial of the motion for a directed verdict. Cf. State v. Kitches, 2021 UT App 24, ¶ 28, 484 P.3d 415 (“If the merits of a claim can easily be resolved in favor of the party asserting that the claim was not preserved, we readily may opt to do so without addressing preservation.” (cleaned up)). 20240889-CA 12 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez danger. State v. Sorbonne, 2022 UT 5, ¶ 26, 506 P.3d 545. Additionally, self-defense cannot be claimed by an individual who (1) “initially provokes the use of force against another individual with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the other individual” or (2) “was the aggressor . . . , unless the individual withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other individual the intent to withdraw from the encounter and, notwithstanding, the other individual continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.” Utah Code § 76-2-402(3)(a)(i), (iii). ¶36 “When a defendant raises a claim of either perfect or imperfect self-defense, the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self- defense.” State v. Palmer, 2025 UT App 135, ¶ 29, 577 P.3d 1285 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 585 P.3d 46 (Utah 2026); see also State v. Garcia, 2001 UT App 19, ¶ 11, 18 P.3d 1123 (“If self-defense is adequately raised, the State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense. The defendant does not bear the burden of persuasion.” (cleaned up)). But to succeed on an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim in this context, the defendant 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 [the defendant] did not act in self-defense.” State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27, 345 P.3d 1168. As we explain, Martinez “has not satisfied this burden.” Id. ¶37 First, the State presented sufficient evidence that Martinez was the initial aggressor who provoked Alex and that Martinez did not effectively withdraw from the encounter. Several witnesses testified that Martinez initiated the aggression when he began throwing beer bottles at the Tesla. And Martinez was asked by his friends to stop throwing beer bottles into the street. He refused to stop and then resumed throwing bottles toward the Tesla. Martinez responded to Alex’s request that he stop with an expletive-laced refusal and by continuing to target the Tesla with 20240889-CA 13 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez the beer bottles. Moreover, he was described as being “angry the entire time.” ¶38 Martinez argues that even if he was the initial aggressor, he “did withdraw from his initial encounter with [Alex], and he effectively communicated his withdrawal when he turned his back on [Alex], walked away from [Alex’s] Tesla, and stopped throwing beer bottles.” However, this argument misinterprets the evidence presented by the State and does not construe the evidence in favor of the verdict, as our review requires us to do. There was no evidence that Martinez tried to calm the situation down or show that he was abandoning the fight. While he did turn and walk away momentarily, he immediately spun back around, gestured at Alex, and kept yelling offensive remarks. Because of this continued hostile behavior, there simply is no evidence to support a finding that Martinez clearly communicated an intention to withdraw from the confrontation. ¶39 Second, there is substantial evidence that Martinez’s asserted belief that serious, unlawful harm was imminent was not reasonable. Martinez resists this conclusion by claiming he had de-escalated the situation by walking away and stopping his bottle-throwing but that he had to use deadly force when he saw a laser sight from Alex’s gun pointed at him. However, this interpretation misrepresents the evidence and does not construe it in favor of the verdict. The only evidence to support Martinez’s assertion that Alex “continued to keep his laser-sighted pistol trained on Martinez” after Martinez turned away was Martinez’s own self-serving testimony. Doorbell camera footage directly contradicts his story; it never shows Martinez looking down at his midsection for a laser, but instead it captures him acting aggressively, shouting, and threatening Alex. None of the other witnesses indicated that they saw a laser pointing at Martinez. Furthermore, Martinez took no evasive action to protect himself after supposedly seeing the threat. Rather than taking cover, he turned his back twice, continued yelling, and actually skipped 20240889-CA 14 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez toward the supposed danger before recklessly firing ten rounds into a busy street. And there is plenty of evidence that Alex never aimed his laser-equipped firearm at Martinez after Martinez initially turned away. Even if Alex had pointed the laser at him earlier in the encounter, there is evidence that by the time Martinez spun back around to shout and point at Alex, Alex was already securely buckled into his vehicle. ¶40 Third, there is evidence that Martinez didn’t believe that serious, unlawful harm was imminent. The video recordings do not depict Martinez as fearful, trying to avoid the conflict, or attempting to retreat. Instead, the footage captures him shouting in anger, moving aggressively toward the Tesla, and ultimately running, skipping, 6 and firing a weapon at the Tesla. Furthermore, the doorbell camera footage never shows him checking his midsection for a laser beam such that he would have even been aware that a laser sight was fixed on him. And in the aftermath of the shooting, Martinez did not contact the authorities, which would normally be expected if he had truly believed he was acting in self-defense. Rather, the evidence showed that he fled the scene while laughing about having shot Alex and giving Earl a high-five. Likewise, when he was later interrogated by law enforcement, he never mentioned self- defense but lied repeatedly and falsely accused Gene and Earl of the shooting. Moreover, physical evidence suggests it was impossible for Alex to be aiming a laser when Martinez turned and began shooting. At the time Martinez claimed he saw the laser, Alex was buckled in his seatbelt in the driver seat with the backs of his hands facing the windshield. At best, Martinez’s self- defense argument is merely a fabricated afterthought designed to excuse the fact that he shot two people after a party. In other words, the State presented convincing evidence that Martinez not only lacked a reasonable belief that using deadly force was 6. From our review of the evidence, Martinez’s skipping looks more playful than like serpentine counter-offensive efforts. 20240889-CA 15 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez necessary, but also that he did not have any belief justifying his use of such force. ¶41 While Martinez might dispute the prosecution’s case to the jury, his mere disagreement does not mean there was a lack of evidence to disprove his claim of self-defense. To successfully challenge the outcome, he has the burden to “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 [he] did not act in self-defense.” See Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27. Because he has failed to meet this burden, this claim of error fails. II. Imperfect Self-Defense ¶42 Martinez also argues that “[g]iven the circumstances surrounding [his] encounter with [Alex, he] could reasonably but mistakenly believe that he was legally justified in using defensive force against” Alex. This claim fails because the State presented sufficient evidence to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez had a reasonable belief that he was justified in using deadly force in self-defense. ¶43 Imperfect self-defense requires “a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification or excuse for the conduct although the conduct was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances.” Utah Code § 76-5- 203(4)(a) (emphasis added). “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. In other words, perfect 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.” State v. Palmer, 2025 UT App 135, ¶ 30, 577 P.3d 1285 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 585 P.3d 46 (Utah 2026). 20240889-CA 16 2026 UT App 171  State v. Martinez ¶44 As we explained, see supra ¶¶ 39–40, the State presented abundant evidence to show that Martinez lacked a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification for using deadly force. Instead of supporting a finding that Martinez acted out of a reasonable belief or fear that Alex posed a threat justifying deadly force, the evidence supported a finding that Martinez’s actions were driven by a free-floating anger over the circumstances. As we explained in the previous section, the State presented evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez did not genuinely believe he needed to use lethal force to protect himself from death or serious harm. Accordingly, Martinez has not met his burden to 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” Martinez did not act in imperfect self-defense. See State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27, 345 P.3d 1168. CONCLUSION ¶45 The State presented sufficient evidence to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martinez acted in perfect or imperfect self-defense when he shot and killed Alex and Jeff. ¶46 Affirmed. 20240889-CA 17 2026 UT App 171