State v. Grant

Decision Date30 September 2021
Docket NumberNo. 20190621-CA,20190621-CA
Citation499 P.3d 176
Parties STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Gerald Radckiff GRANT, Appellant.
CourtUtah Court of Appeals

Sarah J. Carlquist and Rich Hawkes, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Lindsey L. Wheeler, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Michele M. Christiansen Forster concurred.

Opinion

POHLMAN, Judge:

¶1 Under the pretense that he would be buying drugs, Gerald Radckiff Grant got into an SUV with three men. The SUV drove off, and when Grant exited the parked SUV minutes later, all three men had fatal gunshot wounds. Grant, claiming he acted in imperfect self-defense, pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter for causing the deaths of the three men. In addition to sentencing Grant to prison, the district court ordered him to pay restitution.

¶2 Grant appeals the restitution order, asserting three errors. First, he argues that the district court should have allocated fault to the victims. Second, he argues that the court plainly erred in ordering him to reimburse the victims’ parents for income they lost in the aftermath of the killings. Third, he argues that the court erred in deferring the determination of court-ordered restitution to the Board of Pardons and Parole. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

BACKGROUND1

¶3 In the evening on February 18, 2016, police responded to a disturbance and found an SUV parked in the middle of the road. The police discovered three men with gunshot wounds in the vehicle—Mateo, Marcus, and Roman.2 Mateo was pronounced dead on scene. Marcus and Roman, two brothers, were transported to the hospital, but within days they both died from their injuries.

¶4 Witnesses reported seeing a man exit the SUV and limp to the side of the road while talking on a cell phone. They said that a white car then arrived, the man got into the white car and it drove away. When the police searched the SUV, they found one .40 caliber casing and three 9mm casings. They recovered a .40 caliber Hi-Point pistol from under the front passenger seat. They also located a Ruger 9mm handgun in the yard of a nearby residence.

¶5 Further investigation led the police to arrest Grant, who had gone to a hospital with a gunshot wound to his leg. The police interviewed Ali, the man who had brought Grant to the hospital. Ali said that he had arranged for Grant to buy marijuana and that Ali and another man, Samuel, had driven Grant in a white car to meet the sellers in the SUV. Ali reported that after Grant got into the SUV, they lost sight of it and that Grant called him a few minutes later saying he had been shot. Ali and Samuel then picked up Grant.

¶6 A subsequent search of cell phone communications showed that Grant had texted his girlfriend on February 18, 2016, describing "hit[ting] a lick on Cj" the night before.3 Grant also told his girlfriend that he would meet her later that night but stated, "I might have to do some lick tonight but I'll let u know." Then at 7:30 p.m. he sent her a text saying that he was "leaving now." That same day, Grant also texted Ali, saying "we robbed Cj for a couple hundred" and asking Ali to set up another "plan" for later that night. Ali then set up the marijuana purchase with Mateo and forwarded the details to Grant via a screenshot. Ali followed up with a text to Grant to "bring the 9ner we got work now."4

¶7 The State initially charged Grant with three counts of aggravated murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of obstructing justice. After a four-day preliminary hearing, the district court bound Grant over for trial on all charges. As a result of plea negotiations, the State amended the information to charge Grant with three counts of manslaughter, with each count carrying an enhanced penalty for Grant's use of a dangerous weapon, and it dismissed the remaining counts. Grant pleaded guilty to the amended charges.

¶8 Grant's statement in support of his plea explains that he was pleading guilty to the elements of the crime as follows: "On or about February 18, 2016, in Salt Lake County, Mr. Grant caused the death of [Mateo], [Marcus,] and [Roman] while he reasonably but incorrectly believed that his conduct was legally justified or excused by self-defense. Mr. Grant used a firearm in the commission of the offense." Grant further acknowledged in the plea statement that he "may be ordered to make restitution to any victims of [his] crimes."

¶9 A presentence investigation report was completed before sentencing. In it, Grant provided his version of events. According to Grant, his friend set up the deal to buy marijuana from the three men, and Grant got in their SUV to weigh the drugs. The SUV suddenly took off "fast" and the man in the back seat "started to beat on" Grant, who fought back. The man in the front passenger seat leaned over the console to go through Grant's pockets and pressed a pistol into Grant's leg. Grant pulled out his own gun in response and, as he chambered a round, heard a shot and felt his leg become numb. Grant thought he "was going to die." He then shot the man next to him, making the man "scream[ ] and jump[ ] in the back cargo area," and Grant then saw the driver signal to the front passenger by running "his hand [a]cross his throat then point[ing] towards [Grant]." The front passenger and Grant then struggled until Grant shot him. The driver stopped the vehicle, and because Grant "didn't know what [the driver] was going to do," Grant "reached over and shot him too." Grant claimed that he learned only later that the front passenger's gun had jammed, and Grant concluded, "You bring a gun to a drug deal in case things go wrong, but you never plan on them going wrong."

¶10 At sentencing, the court ordered Grant to serve consecutive prison terms totaling not less than six years but not more than thirty years. The court also ordered Grant "to pay full restitution."

¶11 The State moved for restitution of at least $105,605.93. As pecuniary damages resulting from Grant's criminal activities, the State asserted that Marcus and Roman's parents should be compensated for the brothers’ funeral expenses and income their father lost spending time arranging and attending funeral services. The State also claimed that Mateo's parents sustained pecuniary damages for funeral expenses, counseling expenses, and the income they lost during the period of mourning. Finally, the State claimed that the Utah Office of Recovery Services and Medicaid (ORS/Medicaid) should be reimbursed for around $67,000 in Medicaid benefits paid for the emergency health care provided to Marcus and Roman.5

¶12 Grant opposed the State's motion for restitution. He maintained that he acted in self-defense and argued that the district court should deny restitution or lower any amount of restitution by allocating fault to the deceased men. While admitting that he got in the SUV to purchase marijuana from the three men, Grant asserted that they intended to rob him and that the evidence would show that "the reason for Grant's shooting of the three men was that [Roman] drove the car away to avoid being followed by Grant's acquaintances, that [Mateo] attacked Grant, and finally, that [Marcus] trained his firearm on Grant and shot him." According to Grant, the conduct of the three men "broke the natural and continuous sequence in which the events were intended to originally unfold" and "no one would have been killed if the transaction had proceeded as planned." Grant further explained that the court would "have to determine from the available evidence whether Grant's recollection of what occurred inside [Roman's] vehicle" was consistent with the physical evidence and that "[t]hat determination [would] have to drive the allocation of fault."6 Grant urged the court to "find that without the felonious actions of the deceased, their deaths would not have occurred and, consequently, they should not be entitled to any restitution."

¶13 The district court conducted an evidentiary restitution hearing. The court considered witness testimony and both parties’ exhibits, as well as pleadings, memoranda, transcripts, the presentence investigation report, and all other relevant material on file. For example, the court noted that during Ali's police interview, he said Grant told him that Grant pulled his gun first. The court also considered the medical examiner's report, which provided evidence of the location and positions of the victims when they were shot. The court deemed the medical examiner's report important to determining "who shot first" and found that the report supported the State's contention that Grant "pulled his gun first and shot first before he was shot in the knee."

¶14 The court noted that the parties agreed the Ruger 9mm pistol belonged to Grant, he had the Ruger with him on the night in question, and the Ruger was used to shoot the three men. The court also noted that the parties agreed that the .40 caliber Hi-Point pistol belonged to Marcus and was used to shoot Grant in the knee. The State's firearms expert concluded that the Hi-Point was fired once and then jammed immediately. The court also considered the report from the State's expert in shooting reconstruction, in which the expert agreed that the Hi-Point fired once and jammed and also concluded that "the sequence of the shots delivered, or who fired the first shot in the car, cannot be independently determined." The court nevertheless deemed the shooting reconstruction report important to determining what occurred in the vehicle and found that it, along with other evidence, contradicted Grant's version of events.

¶15 The district court found that the evidence supported the following sequence of events:

[Grant] pulled his gun first, [and Mateo] was shot first while he was in the cargo area of the truck or in the process of moving to the cargo area. [Grant] was shot in the knee by [Ma
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Calata
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 2022
    ...interpreting it. ¶15 "Complete restitution and court-ordered restitution are distinct concepts." State v. Grant , 2021 UT App 104, ¶ 56, 499 P.3d 176. Complete restitution is the restitution "necessary to compensate a victim for all losses caused by the defendant." Id. (cleaned up). Court-o......
  • State v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 24 Noviembre 2023
    ...in connection with its restitution analysis, we review those legal determinations for correctness." State v. Grant, 2021 UT App 104, ¶ 24, 499 P.3d 176 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 505 P.3d (Utah 2022); see also State v. Ogden, 2018 UT 8, ¶ 24, 416 P.3d 1132 ("We review questions o......
  • State v. Calata
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 17 Noviembre 2022
    ...interpreting it. ¶15 "Complete restitution and court-ordered restitution are distinct concepts." State v. Grant, 2021 UT App 104, ¶ 56, 499 P.3d 176. Complete restitution is the restitution "necessary compensate a victim for all losses caused by the defendant." Id. (cleaned up). Court-order......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT