State v. Cabututan
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20200151-CA |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 1003 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Andy Phillips CABUTUTAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Aaron P. Dodd, Provo, and Kara H. North, Orem, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Jonathan S. Bauer, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 Andy Phillips Cabututan's fight with his boss (Boss) started with words, a pistol, swinging fists, a kick to the groin, and a brick; but the fight ended with Boss's death after Cabututan struck Boss's head with a shovel. At Cabututan's murder trial, the jury rejected his assertion that he acted in perfect self-defense and ultimately convicted him of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
Cabututan appeals on various grounds, but we affirm.
¶2 At a time when Cabututan and Boss maintained a good relationship, Cabututan moved his camper onto Boss's property as part of an agreement to perform mechanical work on Boss's taxis. However, as the months passed, their relationship soured. Cabututan, in Boss's view, had failed to live up to his end of the bargain—namely, Cabututan sat in his camper instead of working on the taxis.
¶3 One morning, while Cabututan sat in his camper, he heard a sudden bang on his door. Boss had come to confront Cabututan about Cabututan's failure to do enough work. After opening the camper door, Cabututan walked past Boss, opened the door to his van and got in, and, leaving the van door open, began rolling a cigarette. For a moment, Cabututan listened as Boss "yell[ed] and scream[ed]," but he soon informed Boss that he would be moving. In response, Boss challenged him, "Come on out of there and we'll handle this."
¶4 So, as Cabututan told the police, he "stepped up to him," "[t]ook off [his] shirt[,] and came at him." But almost immediately, Boss produced a pistol. Cabututan, seeing a loaded pistol pointed straight at him, "just went into complete blank out self-defense mode," "took a swing at [Boss], and blocked ... the pistol." Boss lowered the pistol and Cabututan jumped to the side before seeing Boss raise the pistol again. Cabututan reacted quickly and "kicked [Boss] square in the nuts," but to Cabututan's surprise, When Boss raised the pistol again, Cabututan "just started dancing" and "moving around"—all amidst "a bunch of screaming" from both of them.
¶5 Eventually, Boss "reached down and picked up [a] brick," giving him "two weapons in his hand[s]" while Cabututan had none. But then Cabututan saw a shovel lying on the ground. Cabututan picked it up and swung it at Boss, but Boss "ducked to the side." Boss raised the pistol in one hand and had the brick "up ready to throw." Thinking that Boss would throw the brick, Cabututan swung the shovel again. Boss side-stepped and started to raise the pistol again, but Cabututan struck him with the shovel on the side of the head and he "dropped," falling "face first." Cabututan threw the shovel, "kind of freaked out and walked [away] and came back."
¶6 From her living-room window, Boss's wife (Wife) saw Cabututan "walking around, holding his head." When she went outside to find out what was going on, Cabututan told her that Boss "came after [him]" and pointed toward where Boss's body lay on the ground, face down. She then called 911, and Cabututan attempted to perform CPR. Despite these efforts, and the efforts of police and medical professionals, Boss died. At the scene, Cabututan provided police a statement detailing the fight's progression as described above, and later, the State charged Cabututan with murder.
¶7 At trial, defense counsel opted to pursue a theory of self-defense and conceded that Boss had died by Cabututan's hand, stating, Defense counsel, however, did object to several photos depicting both the autopsy and the crime scene. The autopsy photos showed a skull, with the scalp skinned back to reveal the internal injuries that resulted from the hit with the shovel. In defense counsel's estimation, the prejudicial impact to the jury far outweighed any probative impact that could result from the photos’ admission; he asserted that the jury would just see "a morbid, blood[y], skinned back[ ] skull." The trial court, however, disagreed, stating that because "the State is going to be proving up the cause of death and the degree of force that caused the death ... the probative value of these [photos] outweigh[ed] the prejudicial value in that" the photos went toward "the degree of force that was exerted that would have caused the demise of the individual." As for the crime scene photos, the court determined that they depicted the external injury and the spatial relationship between where the body, the brick, and the pistol were found on the scene. Defense counsel objected to these photos on grounds that they "sensationalized" the on-scene treatment to elicit sympathy from the jury. But, except for one photo excluded because it was "redundant," the court allowed the photos, in part, because they "show[ed] the alleged injury," as well as "a lot of other things that the State deem[ed] relevant" but that the court did not expressly identify.
¶8 In addition to testimony about the fight as described above, the State elicited testimony from Wife about how she experienced the incident, and when asked how the incident had affected her, she responded, And later, the State elicited testimony from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy. The medical examiner described the autopsy photos and testified that he determined the "manner of death" was—as a medical and not a legal matter—"homicide" due to "blunt head trauma
."
¶9 Following the State's case, Cabututan moved for a directed verdict. He asserted that the State had failed to carry its burden of proving that his affirmative defense of "perfect self-defense" did not apply. In response, the State argued that it had "provided sufficient evidence that the jury could find that the defendant [was] in fact guilty of murder and that in fact self-defense [did] not apply." The State asserted that the instructions would "state that if [Cabututan] ... was engaged [in] combat by agreement," then perfect self-defense would not apply. And by Cabututan's "own words" combat by agreement was "exactly what happened, and the jury could so find." The court agreed and denied the motion.
¶10 The jury instructions informed the jury that to find Cabututan guilty of murder, it would have to agree on each of the elements of murder and that perfect self-defense did not apply. The jury was also instructed that if it found him guilty of murder, it would have to determine whether imperfect self-defense applied. The jury was informed that imperfect self-defense was a "partial defense" to murder, that it applied "when the defendant caused the death of another while incorrectly, but reasonably, believing that his conduct was legally justified or excused," and that its effect would be "to reduce the level of the offense." Ultimately—whether due to a determination that only imperfect self-defense applied or because it did not believe that the State had proved the elements of murder—the jury found Cabututan guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
¶11 Cabututan now appeals and raises three primary issues for our review. First, he contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to overcome his claim of perfect self-defense. "When reviewing a preserved sufficiency of the evidence claim, we ask simply whether the jury's verdict is reasonable in light of all of the evidence taken cumulatively, under a standard of review that yields deference to all reasonable inferences supporting the jury's verdict." State v. Darnstaedt , 2021 UT App 19, ¶ 18, 483 P.3d 71 (cleaned up). Second, Cabututan contends that the trial court erred in admitting the photos. We review such challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Met v. State , 2016 UT 51, ¶ 36, 388 P.3d 447. Third, Cabututan contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to testimony about the effect of Boss's death on Wife.2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Beckering , 2015 UT App 53, ¶ 18, 346 P.3d 672 (cleaned up).
¶12 To prevail on his contention that the State presented insufficient evidence to overcome his assertion of perfect self-defense, Cabututan would need to show either that, given the evidence presented at trial, a jury could not "find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime," see State v. Henfling , 2020 UT App 129, ¶ 28, 474 P.3d 994 (cleaned up), or that perfect self-defense did not apply. But this is something Cabututan cannot do because his own statements provided the evidence necessary for the State to meet its burden to show guilt and disprove perfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
To continue reading
Request your trial