State v. Juarez
| Decision Date | 20 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20190123-CA,20190123-CA |
| Citation | 489 P.3d 231 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Oscar Eduardo Godinez JUAREZ, Appellant. |
Brett J. DelPorto, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and David A. Simpson, Attorneys for Appellee
1
Opinion
¶1 A jury convicted Oscar Eduardo Godinez Juarez of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. Godinez Juarez2 appeals those convictions, asserting that his trial attorney rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by agreeing to a "dual-jury" trial procedure, and asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial related to the prosecutor's and witnesses’ use of the term "victims" in referring to the complaining witnesses. We reject Godinez Juarez's arguments and affirm his convictions.
¶2 One evening, two seventeen-year-old boys (collectively, Teens; individually, Teen 1 and Teen 2) went to Godinez Juarez's house—a place they had been "once or twice" before—to "hang out." When they arrived, Godinez Juarez was not home, but Teens were greeted by another acquaintance (Codefendant), with whom they socialized while waiting for Godinez Juarez. When Godinez Juarez got home, he immediately confronted Teen 1, "calling him a snitch," and pointed a handgun "right in [Teen 1's] face." Teen 1 first thought Godinez Juarez was joking and pushed the gun away, but Godinez Juarez continued to threaten Teen 1. Teen 2 attempted to intervene, but Codefendant quickly "smacked" him, took away his cell phone, and produced a rifle. While pointing the guns at Teens, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant threatened to "smoke" them, and commanded them to go downstairs into the basement.
¶3 Once they were downstairs, Godinez Juarez ordered Teens to empty their pockets and "to get on [their] knees"; he then struck Teen 2 on the head with the handgun, and he and Codefendant began kicking Teens "everywhere on [their] bodies." After a while, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant left the room and when they returned, Codefendant was holding some "weed eater string" and Godinez Juarez had a "Fiji" brand plastic water bottle that contained gasoline. Codefendant tied up Teens with the weed eater string and Godinez Juarez poured the gasoline onto both Teens. While pouring gasoline onto Teen 2, Godinez Juarez pressed his foot to Teen 2's face, causing him to ingest some of the gasoline. Godinez Juarez then sprayed a different substance—that Teens at first thought was "brake fluid" but turned out to be "starter fluid"—into Teens’ ears. After dousing Teens in flammable liquid, Codefendant held a lit "blunt"4 over Teen 1 and repeatedly brought it close to his body as "if he was going to let it go." Godinez Juarez and Codefendant also picked up a chainsaw in an effort to further torment Teens, but were unable to get it started.
¶4 Throughout the basement ordeal, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant were intermittently laughing and repeatedly threatening to kill Teens, suggesting more than once that they were going to "take [them] somewhere," "cut [them] up," and bury them. After "stomping and kicking" Teens some more, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant told them to move into the garage. In the process of getting up off the basement floor, Teen 1 was able to grab his cell phone, which Codefendant had confiscated but left nearby, and conceal it in his waistband. Once in the garage, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant forced Teens to "roll over" and "lick the floor," which was covered in dog feces. After a few minutes, Godinez Juarez and Codefendant left the room, and Teen 1 was able to pull the cell phone out of his waistband and dial 911. Once the operator answered, Teen 1 began to tell her about the situation, but Godinez Juarez returned and Teen 1 had to hang up the phone.
¶5 On the other end of Teen 1's 911 call, the operator at first could not hear anything aside from "a lot of ruffling and some talking," but eventually was able to hear someone exclaim, "[T]hey're going to kill me." Based on what the operator and dispatcher could glean from the call, they informed the responding officers that the caller was being held in a garage, but were not able to give an exact address. As the phone call continued, the operator was able to triangulate a general GPS location based on the cell signal and updated the dispatcher with an approximate address. One of the responding officers (Officer) was travelling toward the approximate location given by the dispatcher when he came across Godinez Juarez in an alleyway. Officer identified himself as a police officer, prompting Godinez Juarez to attempt to retreat. After Officer "grabbed ahold of him," Godinez Juarez looked in the direction of his house and yelled, "Shut the garage, shut the garage." At that point, Officer looked toward the garage and saw that it was partially open, but did not immediately notice anything out of the ordinary. A few moments later, however, the garage "opened all the way" and Teen 1 ran out, shouting expletives and exclaiming, "[T]hese guys are trying to kill us."
¶6 Shortly thereafter, Teen 2 was able to partially free himself and make his way out of the garage. After Teens had exited the garage, and with Godinez Juarez in custody, Officer used a bullhorn to command any other individuals to come out based on the belief "that there was possibly another person in the house, and that that person was probably armed and dangerous." After a few minutes, Codefendant exited the house without further incident and was detained by police.
¶7 "[A]fter the residence was cleared," officers searched the house pursuant to a search warrant. During the search, officers recovered evidence indicating that Godinez Juarez lived at the house, including mail addressed to him, his student ID, and his passport. The officers also found evidence that substantiated many of the details given in Teens’ account of events, including a "Fiji water bottle that contained a yellow-like substance," a can of "starter fluid," a chainsaw, and a handgun and rifle hidden in a ventilation grate. Finally, at least one responding officer observed the condition of the garage, noting that he "could smell the dog feces and urine" as soon as the garage door opened, and described how "it was everywhere."
¶8 Later that night, officers interviewed Godinez Juarez at the police station. In the interview, Godinez Juarez admitted that he lived in the house where Teens were found and that Teens had been there multiple times before. Godinez Juarez also stated that he believed Teens "were snitching on him," and that "he wanted to teach them a lesson" that night. He admitted to binding Teens’ legs with "weed whacker wire," and pouring "clear liquid [on them] from a Fiji bottle," although he claimed that he did not realize the liquid was gasoline until he smelled the fumes as he was pouring it. During the interview, Godinez Juarez exhibited a "proud" demeanor, admitting that he "slapped [Teens] around" and simultaneously demonstrating a slapping motion while laughing.
¶9 That same night, officers also interviewed Codefendant. He was interviewed in a separate room from Godinez Juarez, and they could not hear each other. During the course of the interview, Codefendant at first denied any wrongdoing, but eventually "admitted to tying [Teens] up" with "weed eater cord" based on the belief that "one of [them] was a snitch." Codefendant also admitted to "handling the rifle," and told officers where they could find the guns in Godinez Juarez's house. Codefendant also told officers that Teens were not his friends and "they didn't like [him] and [he] didn't like them."
¶10 The State charged Godinez Juarez with two counts each of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery, all first-degree felonies, and two counts of third-degree-felony aggravated assault.5 The State filed similar charges against Codefendant.
¶11 As the case proceeded toward trial, Godinez Juarez filed a motion to sever his trial from Codefendant's. In response, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to employ a "dual jury procedure" to resolve the apparent " Bruton problem"6 posed by the State's intention to offer both defendants’ confessions into evidence at trial. Rather than conduct two entirely separate trials, the State proposed that just one trial be held, but that the court empanel two separate juries—one specific to each defendant—and ask each defendant's respective jury to leave the courtroom when a codefendant's out-of-court statement (or other evidence admissible as to only one defendant) was presented. In this way, each defendant's confession would be heard only by that defendant's jury. The State asserted in its motion that a dual-jury trial would serve judicial economy and would require the witnesses—including Teens in particular—to testify at only one trial rather than two. Eventually, through his trial counsel (Trial Counsel), Godinez Juarez agreed to this procedure and indicated that he did "not object to the State's request for dual juries."
¶12 The trial court presided over a five-day jury trial, for which it empaneled two separate juries. To ensure easy identification of the jurors, the court required members of Godinez Juarez's jury to wear blue lanyards, and required members of Codefendant's jury to wear black lanyards. The court also provided several instructions to ensure that the jurors understood that their role was specific to adjudging their respective defendant's guilt, and not that of the other defendant.
¶13 On the second day of trial, Teen 2 testified extensively as to the events outlined above. During the third day of trial, the State presented testimony from Teen 1, but he indicated that he could not remember the incident after two years, and stated that he "blacked out." The prosecutor then attempted to refresh his recollection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carrera
...usually will be appropriate, even during trial before the jury has reached a verdict." See State v. Godinez Juarez , 2021 UT App 53, ¶ 35, 489 P.3d 231 ; see also id. (offering an illustrative hypothetical "in which a complaining witness was undoubtedly assaulted, as evidenced by obvious ph......
-
State v. Carrera
...usually will be appropriate, even during trial before the jury has reached a verdict." See State v. Godinez Juarez, 2021 UT App 53, ¶ 35, 489 P.3d 231; also id. (offering an illustrative hypothetical "in which a complaining witness was undoubtedly assaulted, as evidenced by obvious physical......
-
State v. Moore
...concerning than general statements referring to victims of crime across a particular population," State v. Juarez , 2021 UT App 53, ¶ 36, 489 P.3d 231. And here, where Expert referred to a range of individuals and made no reference to Mindy or Daughter, it is less likely that the jury was u......