State v. Haar
| Decision Date | 15 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20200261-CA,20200261-CA |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Gavin Michael HAAR, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Gregory W. Stevens, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Marian Decker, Attorneys for Appellee
1
Opinion
¶1 Gavin Michael Haar appeals his convictions for murder and child abuse relating to the death of his then-girlfriend's two-year-old son (Victim). Haar points to two purportedly problematic aspects of his trial, which he argues entitle him to a new one: witness testimony offering opinions on the veracity of Haar's multifarious stories of how Victim received his fatal injuries, and a few sentences of the prosecutor's closing argument. But these challenges are unpreserved, and because we conclude that Haar cannot demonstrate prejudice by showing a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome even without the purportedly improper testimony and closing argument, we affirm.
¶2 Haar began a "sexual relationship" with Victim's mother (Mother) in April 2018. At the time, she had four children, the youngest of whom was two-year-old Victim. At first, Haar attempted to establish a positive relationship with each of Mother's children, and "treated them well in front of [her]." At some point, an off-and-on arrangement began in which Victim lived with his biological father in Washington for "a number of months," and then in Utah with his paternal aunt (Aunt) and her family. Aunt had three children, one of whom was close in age to Victim, and the two cousins regularly played together while Victim was staying at Aunt's house.
¶3 In May, shortly after Mother began dating Haar, she and Haar retrieved Victim from Washington and all three of them moved to Utah to live with Aunt because "they didn't have a place to go." Prior to that, Aunt had met Haar only once, and "really didn't know him." A few days after they had settled in at Aunt's house, Aunt began noticing that "Haar was very angry" and became "easily irritated" with Victim, sometimes screaming at him to "shut the F up." In particular, Aunt observed that on these occasions, Haar often would "grab [Victim] by the arm, yank him up and drag him down the hallway into his and [Mother's] room." Then Aunt would hear Victim "screaming out of nowhere, horribly," and she would attempt to intervene by "bang[ing] on the door, trying to get in the room," but she could not enter because the door was locked. Aunt also observed that Mother did not personally discipline Victim—indeed, Aunt noted that "[s]he never disciplined" "any of her kids"—and when Victim misbehaved Mother simply asked Haar, "Are you going to do anything?" According to Aunt, although Mother suggested that Haar "needed to be the one to do it," Mother also went "back and forth" and at points complained that Haar was "too aggressive" in disciplining Victim. Aunt also observed Haar "roughhousing" with Victim because Haar thought Victim was "a sissy, so he needed to be toughened up." But these interactions "always ended the same" way: with Victim "crying because he would hit his head really hard ... from being shoved."
¶4 After approximately two weeks, Aunt asked Haar to move out but told Mother and Victim they were "welcome to stay." Nevertheless, Mother "left with [Haar] and took [Victim] with her." The trio moved into a friend's (Friend) house; Friend had known Haar for "[r]oughly five months" and had only known Mother while she and Haar were together. Friend took them in despite not wanting Haar there because "all [she] wanted to do was help [Victim]" and "they kind of were a package deal." They stayed at Friend's basement apartment for one week, during which time Friend noticed multiple bruises on Victim. Haar offered several explanations for the bruising, including that "the dog hit [Victim] and he fell over" and that Victim "fell off the couch."
¶5 On Friday of the week they stayed with Friend, Mother worked the graveyard shift at a local grocery store, where she "had just started a job," and during the day on Saturday "everybody [was] home." On Saturday night, while Mother was again at work, Haar sent her a text message that said, "He hit his head pretty good on the floor." A few seconds later, Haar sent another message:
¶6 On Sunday, Friend, Friend's daughter, Mother, Haar, and Victim spent five to six hours playing at a local lake. At one point, Victim "got a little tired," and Friend "stayed with him on a blanket" while he rested. Friend did not notice bruising on Victim during the trip to the lake, apart from "one little light" bruise on his face. But the next day—Monday—Friend saw Victim in the bathtub and noticed that "he was covered in bruises ... that [were] not there 24 hours before." Friend approached Mother and asked whether she had seen the bruises, Mother responded affirmatively, and Friend "left it at that."
¶7 At some point later on Monday, Mother apparently left the house, during which time Haar sent her a series of text messages. At 5:12 p.m., he wrote, "You need to get home now," followed a few minutes later by, "Babe it's [Victim]." Then, at 5:28, Haar texted Mother, Mother replied, ; to which Haar retorted,
¶8 Mother was scheduled to work another midnight shift on Monday night and left Victim in Haar's care. Friend noticed nothing unusual about Mother's demeanor as she prepared for work that evening, and noted that it was "just a normal night." After Mother left at around 11:45 p.m., Friend and Haar each smoked a cigarette and drank a beer, and Friend went to bed around midnight.
¶9 Mother began her shift just after midnight, by which time it was Tuesday morning. At 12:35 a.m., Haar called Mother but she did not answer; instead she sent Haar a text message at 12:36 stating, "Can't talk, text me." A few seconds later Haar responded via text, Mother responded, "Okay." Haar then texted Mother, "Anyone ask about bruises we got the[m] four wheeling."3 This entire text exchange occurred in less than two minutes.
¶10 At 12:39 a.m., Haar texted Mother, "I'm calling the cops," and at 12:40, he called 911. Haar gave the dispatcher his address, but when asked for his phone number, Haar responded, The dispatcher told Haar she was paging an ambulance, then asked a few questions about the alleged ATV accident. Haar told the dispatcher where the accident had allegedly occurred and indicated that he and Mother did not bring Victim to a hospital because he had only "minor bumps and bruises." The dispatcher instructed Haar on how to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR) until emergency responders arrived.
¶11 After being notified of the 911 call, two police officers quickly made their way to the scene. As the first responding officer (Officer) arrived, Haar was "running out of the house with [Victim] in his arms" and "screaming at [the officers] to save him." Officer administered CPR until paramedics arrived, but while he was doing so, Haar "kept trying to get [Officer's] attention" to tell him about the ATV accident. Haar told Officer that he had been riding an ATV with Victim when it overturned; Haar stated that he had been "thrown free" but Victim was pinned underneath the vehicle, and Haar "used super human strength" to lift it off of him. Although the situation was "fairly chaotic," Officer noticed that Victim had a "pretty extreme bruise ... under his left eye" and "some other bruising to his face," but there were "no scrapes, no abrasions" that would have been consistent with an ATV accident. Because of these apparent inconsistencies, as well as Haar's demeanor, "red flags started going off" in Officer's head. Officer continued administering CPR until paramedics arrived.
¶12 Meanwhile, Friend's daughter woke her up at 12:55 a.m., and Friend saw "blue and red lights" shining through the window of the apartment. During the roughly fifty minutes Friend was asleep, she did not hear any noises—despite being a "light sleeper" and "shar[ing] a wall" with the bedroom that Mother, Haar, and Victim occupied together. She immediately ran outside and saw Victim "laying on the driveway," surrounded by police and emergency responders. By that point, Mother had also arrived.
¶13 Paramedics could not revive Victim, and he was transported to the hospital, where Haar again told the story of the alleged ATV accident to the treating physician and others as Victim was "getting ... worked on." The emergency physician who led Victim's treatment observed "some odd bruising to [Victim's] abdomen," and that his "abdomen was distended"—meaning that it was "protruding out more than [one] would anticipate." Victim still did not have a detectable pulse at the hospital, and after forty-eight minutes of medical professionals attempting to resuscitate him, Victim was declared dead. Because Victim's death was "unanticipated," and based on the "traumatic" injuries he had sustained, the treating physician notified the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner (OME).
¶14 After Victim was pronounced dead, a detective (Detective) arrived at the hospital, and Officer expressed his concerns regarding the inconsistencies he had noticed between Victim's observed injuries...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alarid
...¶ 33, 463 P.3d 641 (quotation simplified), as well as the "circumstances of the case as a whole," State v. Haar , 2021 UT App 109, ¶ 66, 500 P.3d 102 (quotation simplified). ¶48 Here, even if Counsel did perform deficiently by not challenging the prosecutor's statements, we conclude that Al......
-
State v. Weaver
...precludes a party from arguing that issue in an appellate court, absent a valid exception." State v. Haar, 2021 UT App 109, ¶ 51, 500 P.3d 102 (cleaned up). "The three distinct exceptions" to this preservation requirement are "plain error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and exceptional ......