State v. Eyre
| Decision Date | 03 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180016-CA,20180016-CA |
| Citation | 452 P.3d 1197 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Matthew Gordon EYRE, Appellant. |
Alexandra S. McCallum, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Lindsey Wheeler, Attorneys for Appellee
Amended Opinion1
¶1 Matthew Gordon Eyre appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery and raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues his trial counsel (Trial Counsel) was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that purportedly misstated the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability. Second, Eyre argues his motion for a mistrial should have been granted after the jury viewed the recording of his police interview during its deliberations. In the alternative, he argues Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure the recording was kept out of the jury room. We affirm.
¶2 In August 2016, the victims (Boyfriend and Girlfriend) drove to downtown Salt Lake City in a Dodge Challenger to purchase drugs. Eyre, along with two others, Driver and Passenger, were in a parked Chrysler PT Cruiser. Passenger decided he wanted to steal the Challenger. Eyre told Passenger it was a bad idea. Passenger said he "was going to ask [Boyfriend] for a jump start" for the PT Cruiser. Eyre claims that "as soon as [Passenger] got out of the car," he started "spinning [the] whole fuckin’ jump thing." Boyfriend agreed to help jump start the PT Cruiser.
¶3 Boyfriend parked the Challenger next to the PT Cruiser. Girlfriend remained in the car as Boyfriend got out, opened the hood, and stood between the two vehicles talking to Passenger. Passenger told Eyre and Driver to look for jumper cables in the trunk. After rummaging around in the trunk pretending to look for the cables, Eyre walked up to Passenger and told him they did not have any. Eyre claims he did not know what was said afterward between Boyfriend and Passenger.
¶4 According to Boyfriend and Girlfriend, Passenger lifted his shirt and showed a pistol tucked into his waistband. Passenger announced, Boyfriend testified that Eyre displayed a pistol as well, while Girlfriend testified she did not see Eyre with a pistol or see him leave the trunk area of the PT Cruiser.
¶5 Girlfriend passed a gun to Boyfriend through the passenger side window of the Challenger. Boyfriend testified that Passenger drew his gun and pointed it in Boyfriend’s direction so Boyfriend fired his gun at Passenger; Passenger died later that day. Eyre fled the scene.
¶6 Girlfriend and Boyfriend started driving away in the Challenger, followed by Driver in the PT Cruiser. Driver hit the Challenger’s rear end, causing the PT Cruiser to flip over. Boyfriend and Girlfriend drove away. They parked nearby and discarded Boyfriend’s gun before the police arrived and arrested Boyfriend. While searching the Challenger the police found a gun cleaning kit, a scale for measuring drugs, two bags of marijuana, and thirty-seven bags of suspected Spice.2 The police found a pistol magazine in the PT Cruiser. Other than this evidence, they found "[v]ery little physical evidence" at the crime scene, which was "compromised" by various individuals who rushed there and stole things from the PT Cruiser and Passenger after the shooting.
¶7 The police spoke to a witness who gave a description of Eyre, and this information led an officer to stop him nearby. The officer initially let Eyre leave after he denied involvement with the shooting, but he later was arrested and interviewed. Police never recovered a gun from him, but the State charged Eyre with aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, under a theory of accomplice liability. The case went to trial in October 2017.
¶8 The parties stipulated to a "blanket admission" of all exhibits including: a map of the area, photos of the scene, photos of Eyre during his interview with police, a surveillance video of the area, a video of Eyre’s interview with police (Exhibit 11), and the pistol magazine recovered from the PT Cruiser. According to Trial Counsel, the parties agreed that Exhibit 11 could be played at trial but Trial Counsel was under the impression that the video would not go back to the jury room during deliberations. All exhibits went back to the jury room.
¶9 During deliberations, the jury asked for a computer so it could view the video exhibits. A computer was provided but Trial Counsel assumed the jury wanted to view a different video, not Exhibit 11. After twenty minutes Trial Counsel realized the jury might have access to Exhibit 11 and immediately notified a court employee. The bailiff retrieved the computer from the jury room and confirmed the jury watched Exhibit 11.
¶10 Trial Counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that watching Exhibit 11 a second time, while it deliberated, may have improperly influenced the jury. The court took the motion under advisement pending the verdict. After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the court ordered briefing on the mistrial motion. It ruled that the "jury’s viewing of Exhibit 11 in the jury room during deliberations was improper." But it denied the motion, finding the error was harmless because sufficient evidence supported the verdict, Eyre would have benefited from any weight the jury may have placed on viewing Exhibit 11 multiple times, and the jury had access to Exhibit 11 only for a short period. The court sentenced Eyre to an indeterminate prison term of ten years to life. Eyre appeals.
¶11 Eyre raises two issues on appeal.3 Eyre argues Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that misstated the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability and for failing to ensure Exhibit 11 was not sent into the jury room. "An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Coombs , 2019 UT App 7, ¶ 16, 438 P.3d 967 (quotation simplified).
¶12 Eyre also argues the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. "We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion ...." State v. Murphy , 2019 UT App 64, ¶ 15, 441 P.3d 787.
¶13 Eyre argues Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction (Instruction 40) that misstated the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability. To succeed on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eyre must show "(1) that counsel’s performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that but for counsel’s performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different." State v. Lane , 2019 UT App 86, ¶ 31, 444 P.3d 553 (quotation simplified). "To prevail on the first prong of the test, a defendant must identify specific acts or omissions demonstrating that counsel’s representation failed to meet an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. (quotation simplified). Eyre fails to meet the first prong in this case.
¶14 "To evaluate whether trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to object to the jury instructions, we must first consider whether those instructions were legally correct." State v. Liti , 2015 UT App 186, ¶ 12, 355 P.3d 1078. Accomplice liability attaches to "[e]very person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense." Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202 (LexisNexis 2017).
¶15 Accomplice liability requires a defendant to act with the mental state necessary to commit the offense, which in this case is aggravated robbery. A person commits robbery when "the person unlawfully and intentionally takes or attempts to take personal property in the possession of another from his person." Id. § 76-6-301(1)(a). "A person commits aggravated robbery if in the course of committing robbery he: (a) uses or threatens to use a dangerous weapon ... (b) causes serious bodily injury ... or (c) takes or attempts to take an operable motor vehicle." Id. § 76-6-302(1). In this case, the State had the burden of showing both that Eyre intended the aggravated robbery to take place and that he solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided Passenger in committing aggravated robbery.
¶16 The disputed portion of Instruction 40 states that the jury could find Eyre guilty of aggravated robbery under the theory of accomplice liability if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that "(1) [Eyre] intentionally, (2) solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided another to commit the offense." Eyre argues this instruction is incomplete because it did not inform the jury that it must also find that Eyre had the intent that the aggravated robbery be committed as required by State v. Jeffs , 2010 UT 49, 243 P.3d 1250.
¶17 Although it is true that Instruction 40 would have been clearer if it had included this directive, other jury instructions clarified the mens rea requirement.4 Jury instruction 41 (Instruction 41) instructed the jury that it needed to find that Eyre intended for Passenger to steal the Challenger. In fact, Instruction 41 stated three separate times that the jury could find Eyre guilty only if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the mental state required to commit aggravated robbery. Instruction 41 provided:
Prior knowledge that a crime is about to be committed or is being committed does not make a person an accomplice, and thereby does not subject them to criminal prosecution unless that person has the mental state required to commit the crime and he solicits, requests, commands,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bermejo
...instructions were legally correct." State v. Liti , 2015 UT App 186, ¶ 12, 355 P.3d 1078 ; accord State v. Eyre , 2019 UT App 162, ¶ 14, 452 P.3d 1197, cert. granted , 462 P.3d 797 (Utah 2020). "If the instruction was correct, [Bermejo] cannot establish deficient performance for failing to ......
-
State v. Eyre
...liability for aggravated robbery" and that trial counsel's performance was thus not deficient. State v. Eyre , 2019 UT App 162, ¶ 21, 452 P.3d 1197. Eyre petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this court granted. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).STANDAR......
-
State v. Jones
...not require a particular interpretation and the issue was unsettled under Utah caselaw); cf. State v. Eyre , 2019 UT App 162, ¶¶ 31–32, 452 P.3d 1197 (concluding that failure to object was not deficient performance where Utah courts had not addressed an issue and outside authorities reached......