State v. Harris

• Decision Date: 27 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 20140358–CA.,20140358–CA.
• Parties: STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Derone Quinton HARRIS, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

363 P.3d 555

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Derone Quinton HARRIS, Appellant.

No. 20140358–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Nov. 27, 2015.

Samuel P. Newton, for Appellant.

Sean D. Reyes and Deborah L. Bulkeley, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Judge STEPHEN L. ROTH authored this Memorandum Decision, in which Judges JAMES Z. DAVIS and J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. concurred.¹

Memorandum Decision

ROTH, Judge:

¶ 1 Derone Quinton Harris appeals his convictions for burglary, theft, and criminal mischief, each third degree felonies, and possession of burglary tools, a class B misdemeanor.² We affirm.

¶ 2 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and recite them accordingly." State v. Montoya, 2004 UT 5, ¶ 2, 84 P.3d 1183 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At 4:15am on September 8, 2013, a door sensor alarm and two interior motion detector alarms were triggered at a ski specialty store (the Store) located in Ogden, Utah. The Store is a U-shaped building set back from the public road by a parking lot. The three sides of the building form a courtyard that contains three large planter boxes, each one set further from the public entrances than the last. The Store has two public entrances located at the base of the U; both are glass doors with floor-to-ceiling metal gates that are pulled across them at night. There are also four non-public entrances: three at the back of the building from the basement, and one at the front of the building. All the Store's entrances are locked at night.

¶ 3 When the alarms triggered, two Ogden City police officers, Officer Nielsen and Officer Grogan, were dispatched to investigate.

The officers arrived at the Store in separate patrol vehicles within seven minutes of the initial alarm. Once at the scene, they began to investigate on foot, with Officer Nielsen moving to check the courtyard while Officer Grogan went to the rear of the building.

¶ 4 At first, neither officer saw anyone at the scene. When Officer Nielsen approached the courtyard, he could see that one of the glass doors had been broken, with most of the shards having fallen out into the courtyard. He also noticed a large tree branch lying on the ground next to the door. But as Officer Nielsen approached the broken door, a man later identified as Harris "jump[ed] out from behind" the planter box closest to the Store's entrances and ran away from the Store. Officer Nielsen and Officer Grogan soon cornered Harris near a fourplex not far from the Store. Harris resisted arrest, and the officers physically subdued him. When Officer Nielsen searched Harris, he discovered a shard of glass in Harris's pants pocket that matched the thickness and hue of the glass from the Store's broken door.

¶ 5 The officers then returned to the Store with Harris. Further investigation revealed that all three of the front entrance door locks had been tampered with and damaged. Pry marks were also discovered on the exterior of two of the basement doors.³ In the courtyard, a black backpack, a white shopping bag, and a black duffle bag were discovered on the ground "[j]ust around the corner" from the planter box located closest to the broken door where Officer Nielsen had first seen Harris. The white shopping bag had the Store's labels on it and contained two sets of headphones and two Bluetooth headsets, all new and of the kind sold at the Store.⁴ The black backpack was also Store merchandise, and was filled with women's socks and a number of pairs of sunglasses from the Store.⁵ There was a claw hammer on top of the black duffle bag, and inside the duffle bag were a "long straight screwdriver, three small screwdrivers and three pairs of pliers." A crime scene investigator processed the bags and their contents but was only successful in recovering fingerprints from two pairs of sunglasses; those prints did not match Harris's. Inside the store, a closed cash box had been pried at and "mangled." A suitcase from the Store's inventory was found lying open on the floor. An entire rack of jackets had been cleared; a few of them were found at the bottom of the basement stairwell, and the rest were in a pile in the Store's storage room.

¶ 6 Harris was charged with burglary, theft, criminal mischief, interference with an arresting officer, failing to stop at the command of a law enforcement officer, and possession of burglary tools. At trial, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's case. The trial court denied the motion, stating that "reasonable minds could disagree" regarding the sufficiency of the State's evidence. The jury convicted Harris on all charges.

¶ 7 On appeal, Harris argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of burglary, theft, criminal mischief, and possession of burglary tools. Specifically, Harris argues there was insufficient evidence to establish that he entered the Store; that he possessed any of the items found outside the Store, whether burglary tools or Store inventory; or that he damaged the Store or its contents. He dismisses the significance of the glass shard found in his pocket and contends that the only evidence of any substance that ties him to the crimes was his presence at the scene and his flight—but then argues that neither presence at the scene of a crime nor flight are sufficient under Utah law to support the convictions. Harris asserts that the trial court therefore should have "forthwith order[ed] him discharged." See Utah Code Ann. § 77–17–3 (LexisNexis 2012). The State argues that the evidence was sufficient for the case to go to the jury.⁶ We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to defeat Harris's directed verdict motion, and affirm.

ANALYSIS

¶ 8 A party seeking reversal of a directed verdict denial has a difficult burden of persuasion on appeal because we "review the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury verdict," State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 11, 994 P.2d 177, and we will reverse the denial only if we determine that the evidence "is so inconclusive or so inherently improbable as to an element of the crime that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to that element," State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah 1993) (citations omitted). Put another way, the trial court's decision will be affirmed "if, upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, we conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Montoya, 2004 UT 5, ¶ 29, 84 P.3d 1183 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 9 In addition, while the evidence against Harris is largely circumstantial, it "is a well-settled rule that circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused," Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73, ¶ 11, 358 P.3d 1067 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and "[d]irect evidence is not required" to establish guilt, State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 47, 326 P.3d 645. Convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence are reviewed to determine " ‘(1) whether there is any evidence that supports each and every element of the crime charged, and (2) whether the inferences that can be drawn from that evidence have a basis in logic and reasonable human experience sufficient to prove each legal element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " State v. Lyman, 966 P.2d 278, 281 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (quoting State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337, 344 (Utah 1997) ). "A reasonable inference is a conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence and is based on logic and reasonable human experience." State v. Cristobal, 2014 UT App 55, ¶ 4, 322 P.3d 1170. "Additionally, a reasonable inference arises when the facts can reasonably be interpreted to support a conclusion that one possibility is more probable than another." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is insufficient if the inferences derived from it give rise to only "remote or speculative possibilities of guilt." See Carrera, 2015 UT 73, ¶ 11, 358 P.3d 1067 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But where the fabric of circumstantial evidence "reasonably sustain [s]" inferences of guilt, Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 47, 326 P.3d 645, and " ‘cover[s] the gap between the presumption of innocence and the proof of guilt,’ " Lyman, 966 P.2d at 281 (quoting State v. Petree, 659 P.2d 443, 444–45 (Utah 1983) ), the evidence will be sufficient. We first consider the sufficiency of the evidence in the case and then turn to the cases Harris uses to support his arguments.

A. The Evidence

¶ 10 Harris contends that the case against him is "not particularly strong" because there are only three pieces of evidence relevant to his charges of burglary,⁷ theft,⁸ possession of criminal tools,⁹ and criminal mischief:¹⁰ (1) his proximity to the "stolen property on the outside of the store;" (2) his flight from the police; and (3) the "small piece of glass" found in his pocket. In particular, he contests the sufficiency of evidence as to the specific elements of entry, constructive possession¹¹ of the tools, constructive possession of the stolen items, and destruction of the Store's property, pointing out that the State presented no direct evidence (such as fingerprints or video surveillance) that affirmatively put him inside the Store or in contact with the Store's merchandise found outside it.

¶ 11 But the legal standard applicable to a sufficiency challenge does not focus on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. Rather, our review is limited to a determination of whether there is "some evidence" that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the elements of the crimes had been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Montoya, 2004 UT 5, ¶ 29, 84 P.3d 1183 (citation and internal quotation...