State v. Cox
Decision Date | 23 August 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 20100947–CA.,20100947–CA. |
Citation | 2012 UT App 234,286 P.3d 15,715 Utah Adv. Rep. 37 |
Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Michelle Ann COX, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stephen W. Howard, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges McHUGH, VOROS, and ROTH.
¶ 1 Michelle Ann Cox appeals from her convictions for forgery and theft by deception on the basis that Jury Instruction 33 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof for an element of each of the crimes to the defense. She also asserts that the theft by deception conviction should have been sentenced as a class B misdemeanor rather than as a class A misdemeanor. We affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing on the theft by deception offense.
¶ 2 Cox did not preserve the jury instruction issue in the trial court, and therefore she challenges it under the doctrines of manifest injustice and ineffective assistance of counsel. When a claim of error regarding a jury instruction is made for the first time on appeal, appellate courts review the instruction for “manifest injustice.” SeeUtah R. Crim P. 19(e) (). “Manifest injustice is synonymous with the plain error standard.” State v. Jimenez, 2012 UT 41, ¶ 20, 284 P.3d 640. Thus, to establish manifest injustice, Cox must show that “(i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.” 1See State v. Lee, 2006 UT 5, ¶ 26, 128 P.3d 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted) (establishing standard for plain error review). To prove that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Cox must demonstrate that her attorney's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Seeid. ¶ 37. To prevail on appeal, Cox must establish all the elements of either test. See State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55, ¶ 41, 82 P.3d 1106 (); State v. Welborn, 2012 UT App 5, ¶ 5, 268 P.3d 881 ().
¶ 3 Jury Instruction 33 informed the jury of the affirmative defense the parties have referred to as “honest belief”:
It is a defense to the charge of theft by deception that the Defendant:
(a) acted under an honest claim of right to the property or services involved; or
(b) acted in the honest belief that she had the right to obtain or exercise control over the property or service involved; or (c) obtained or exercised control over the property or service honestly believing that the owner, if present, would have consented.
Evidence of this defense must be presented by the defense, and if presented, the State retains its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements of the offense charged.
(Emphases added.) The language in this instruction tracks the statutory language in Utah Code section 76–6–402, which sets out the presumptions and defenses available for theft charges generally. See generallyUtah Code Ann. § 76–6–402(3) (2008) ( ); id. §§ 76–2–304, –308 (classifying mistake of fact as an affirmative defense).2 To assert an affirmative defense, such as honest belief, the ; rather, the defendant must only “provide some reasonable basis” in the evidence for giving the instruction. State v. Garcia, 2001 UT App 19, ¶ 8, 18 P.3d 1123 ( )(emphasis omitted). Once an affirmative defense has been asserted, the prosecution has the burden of “disprov[ing] the existence of [the] affirmative defense [ ] beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35, ¶ 15, 233 P.3d 476 (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoUtah Code Ann. § 76–1–502 ( ).
¶ 4 In the case of theft by deception, however, the lack of an honest belief that the defendant was entitled to the property she obtained—which the defendant typically raises as an affirmative defense, thereby shifting the burden to the State to disprove—is actually an element of the crime that the prosecution must prove in the first instance.3See generallyUtah Code Ann. § 76–6–405(2)(a) (Supp.2012) ( ); id. § 76–6–401(5)(a)–(b) (2008) ( ). In other words, the State had to affirmatively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, when Cox presented the check for $360 at Mountain America Credit Union, she created an impression, which she knew was false, that she was authorized to cash the check and receive the funds. Requiring Cox to put on evidence of the affirmative defense of honest belief therefore improperly shifted to the defense the State's affirmative burden to present evidence proving that Cox used deception. See generally Drej, 2010 UT 35, ¶ 14, 233 P.3d 476 ( ). Therefore, honest belief is not an affirmative defense to theft by deception, though it may be to other theft crimes. Seeid. ¶ 20 ( ); cf. State v. Palmer, 2009 UT 55, ¶ 12, 220 P.3d 1198 ( ). Thus, in this regard, the instruction to the jury that “[e]vidence of this defense must be presented by the defense” was erroneous.4
¶ 5 We need not decide whether the error was obvious or invited,5 or whether counsel was deficient in failing to object to it because we conclude that the error was harmless. “The concept [of burden of proof] encompasse[s] two distinct burdens: the burden of persuasion ... and the burden of production....” Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005); Searle v. Milburn Irrigation Co., 2006 UT 16, ¶ 49 n. 2, 133 P.3d 382 . The burden of production refers to “ ‘[a] party's duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have the issue decided by the fact-finder.’ ” Searle, 2006 UT 16, ¶ 49 n. 2, 133 P.3d 382 (alteration in original) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 190 (7th ed. 1999)). The burden of persuasion is “ ‘[a] party's duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 190 (7th ed. 1999)).
¶ 6 When a person is charged with a criminal offense, the State bears the entire burden of proof with respect to each element of the charged offense, and the State fulfilled that burden with respect to the theft by deception charge here, including the element that Cox did not have an honest belief that she was entitled to the check and the funds it represented, as to which the State presented substantial evidence. The State produced the testimonies of Officer Brendon Kirkwood and the check fraud investigator at Mountain America to establish this element. Officer Kirkwood's testimony consisted largely of his account of Cox's inconsistent explanations to him of how she came into possession of the check. The officer testified that Cox first claimed that she received it from her neighbor as payment for salon services Cox provided for a party of twelve, but after her supervisor failed to verify that story, Cox claimed that her neighbor asked her to cash the check, which the neighbor had received in exchange for pumping gas for an unknown woman. Finally, when the neighbor's bank records did not support the gas payment story, Cox stated that her neighbor asked her to cash the check, which the neighbor told her was written by her mother, because the neighbor had account issues that prevented her from drawing the funds herself. Officer Kirkwood also testified that Cox informed him that when she received the check, she “filled out her name on the-to pay to the order of, and then the [written] amount.” The check fraud investigator testified that the endorsement “signature [on the back of the check] of Michelle Cox more closely resembles the written out Michelle Cox on the payee line [on the front of the check].” Thus, even though Jury Instruction 33 incorrectly informed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bond
...the defendant or the State bears the burden of showing harm ... [is] not readily resolvable under our current precedent”); State v. Cox,2012 UT App 234, ¶ 15 n. 2, 286 P.3d 15(Voros, J., concurring) (stating that “Utah case law is not entirely clear” on the issue of “who bears the burden of......
-
State v. Clark
...standard and who bears the burden of proof for unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct in the plain error context. See State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234, ¶ 15 n. 2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). However, because we ultimately conclude t......
-
State v. Davis
...applies, and who bears the burden of proof, when a claim of constitutional error is raised within the plain error context.” State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234, ¶ 15 n. 2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). ¶ 12 Accordingly, in Wright we took the cau......
-
State v. Bruun
...exception applicable here. In any event, as a general rule, "[m]anifest injustice is synonymous with the plain error standard." State v. Cox , 2012 UT App 234, ¶ 2, 286 P.3d 15 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (i) ......