Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Utah man convicted of murder in stabbing at party
Courts » Jury takes little time to find Adam Karr guilty in fatal stabbing of Kaleb Yazzie.
First Published Jun 14 2013 03:50 pm • Last Updated Dec 07 2013 11:33 pm

It took a jury little more than an hour and a half Friday to convict Adam Karr of murdering a 22-year-old man outside a Capitol Hill house party.

The jury hadn’t been asked to determine if Karr had stabbed Kaleb Yazzie to death on July 31, 2012. There was no doubt about that. They were asked to determine why.

Reporter Marissa Lang is in the courtroom

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Was it murder, a crime executed to satisfy anger and revenge? Or was it self-defense, an act of desperation and fear?

No one expected it would take so little time to decide.

Both the victim’s and defendant’s families knew the quick turn-around could mean only one thing: There had been little debate among the five men and three women of the jury. The jurors were sure — one way or the other.

Karr, 27, was found guilty of murder and obstruction of justice in the 2012 slaying of Yazzie. He faces up to life in prison when he is sentenced in August.

As the verdict was read, neither family spoke. Sobs from both sides mingled in the tense stillness of the 3rd District courtroom.

For the Yazzie family, the verdict came as a welcome end to the nightmarish year they have endured. They felt vindicated, relieved and — after months of court dates and disappointments — a bit of peace.

"All I heard was the word ‘guilty,’ and after that it was like all the panic, all the fear I was feeling just stopped," said the victim’s sister Jachell Yazzie, 21, who burst into tears as the verdict was read. "I’m overly relieved."

It was not so for the Karr family, who seemed confident throughout the four-day trial that evidence had shown Adam Karr acted in self defense on that night nearly one year ago.

story continues below
story continues below

Adam Karr’s parents, three sisters and two brothers declined to comment as they left the courtroom together Friday. They held on to one another, as mother and daughters let out deep, rattling cries.

Yazzie’s family said they understand what it feels like to lose a son and a brother.

"I’m thankful for the verdict, but I’m sad, too, because it’s such a tragedy," said William Yazzie, the victim’s father. "I feel really bad for [Karr’s] parents. They’re losing a son, too. Though they’ll get to see theirs again. We never will."

In closing arguments to the jury Friday, prosecutor Paul Parker said Yazzie was acting inappropriately, but posed no real threat to the Karrs or anyone at the party.

"You can’t kill an invited guest because they get out of hand," Parker said. "He did not deserve to die. "

Parker said Yazzie, who had knocked a baseball cap off of one of the Karr brothers’ heads and refused to leave when asked, was disrespecting Adam Karr and his home. For this, Parker argued, Karr wanted to exact revenge, and that’s why he killed Yazzie.

But defense attorney Richard Mauro argued the killing was "reasonable" and "necessary" given Yazzie’s behavior that night, which he described as threatening and frightening.

Yazzie, the defense argued, had told the Karr brothers that he wanted to hurt them, that he was a knife fighter, had gang connections and knew mixed martial arts. He said the fear Adam Karr felt was very real.

The defendant’s only witness — Adam Karr’s younger brother, Ammon — added a key piece of evidence to this defense: He said Yazzie had tried to re-enter the house after he had been escorted out and told to leave numerous times. Ammon Karr said a fist fight broke out when he tried to deny Yazzie re-entry.

"You have the right to protect your dwelling, your house and any being in that habitation. You’re allowed to use force — even deadly force. That’s what someone is entitled to do in their house," Mauro said. "Adam Karr followed the law."

The defense’s argument hinges on a defense of habitation law passed by the Utah Legislature in the 1980s. According to that law, a person has the right to defend their home from an intruder by use of lethal force if they perceive the intruder will cause them bodily harm or will commit a crime in their residence.

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.