The Utah Supreme Court convened on May 7, 2025, to deliberate on the case of State v. Hunt, focusing on the critical question of whether the defendant acted reasonably in using lethal force. The discussions centered around the jury's understanding of reasonableness as defined by statutory language and additional jury instructions.

The court emphasized that the jury received comprehensive instructions regarding what constitutes reasonableness, including definitions and factors that guide their evaluation. The defense argued that these instructions formed a robust framework for the jury to assess the defendant's actions. However, the prosecution countered that the defendant, identified as the aggressor, could not claim self-defense due to his initial unlawful actions, which included threatening and physically assaulting the victim before using a firearm.

Key points of contention included whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant's belief in the necessity of using lethal force was justified, especially given that no apparent threat was present at the time of the shooting. The prosecution maintained that the defendant's testimony lacked support from other witnesses, who provided conflicting accounts of the events leading to the shooting.

The court also addressed hypothetical scenarios where the jury might believe the defendant's version of events. Even in such cases, the prosecution argued that the jury could still find the use of force unreasonable based on the evidence presented. The defense's closing arguments reiterated that a belief in danger, even without the presence of a weapon, could justify the use of force, but the prosecution contended that the overall evidence did not support this claim.

In conclusion, the court's discussions highlighted the complexities of self-defense claims and the importance of jury instructions in guiding their deliberations. The ultimate determination of reasonableness in the use of lethal force remains a pivotal aspect of the case, with the court underscoring that the defendant's actions did not meet the legal standards for self-defense. The case continues to unfold as the court deliberates on the implications of the arguments presented.