Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Supreme Court ruled that even if a jury decides a person acted in self-defense and is not guilty of murder, they can still be guilty of running from police or hiding evidence.
Elbert John Paule was found not guilty of murder by a Utah County jury, but that same jury determined he was guilty of obstructing justice, a second-degree felony.
Paule appealed that verdict, claiming that a conviction for obstruction of justice was inconsistent with being found not guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing.
On Feb. 28, 2019, Paule was arguing over the phone with Dominique Barnett, 26, and the agreement escalated. Barnett said over the phone he intended to go to Paule's apartment and "take him out," charges said. Barnett said things would not go well for Paule, who told him not to come.
When Barnett tried to open the door to Paule's apartment, Paule shot and killed the man with a shotgun, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
Paule threw the shotgun off the balcony and then ran, according to evidence at his trial, eventually traveling to his grandmother's home in San Diego.
He was also found not guilty of reckless endangerment and assault at the jury trial, but the jury found that his actions after the homicide did constitute obstruction of justice.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed its decision on Feb. 1, saying the conviction was not inconsistent with his acquittal on other charges. The high court also ruled his attorney was not ineffective because there was no request for a detailed unanimity instruction to be given to the jury.
Paule was also charged with perjury after his testimony in his jury trial, but a judge dismissed the charge mid-trial, ruling that a reasonable jury could not find statements in his testimony were reckless or that he intended them to be false.
