State v. Lemons
| Decision Date | 14 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 910410-CA,910410-CA |
| Citation | 844 P.2d 378 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Tyrone LEMONS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Stephen A. Laker, Ogden, for defendant and appellant.
R. Paul Van Dam and Charlene Barlow, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before BILLINGS, Associate P.J., and JACKSON and RUSSON, JJ.
Defendant Tyrone Lemons appeals a jury conviction of attempted criminal homicide in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-4-101 (1990) and Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203 (Supp.1992). Defendant claims he was denied a fair trial by the use of a walk-through metal detector at the courtroom door and the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had the requisite intent for criminal homicide. We affirm defendant's conviction.
We cite the facts from the record in a "light most favorable to the jury verdict." State v. Perdue, 813 P.2d 1201, 1202 (Utah App.1991). Defendant's conviction was based on his firing a shot which seriously injured Pete Romero (Romero) in the early morning hours of August 26, 1990.
On August 25, 1990, defendant had been drinking and driving around Ogden with his friends. Romero had also been drinking and driving around with his friends. Defendant's brother, Maurice Lemons, and one of Romero's friends, John Delgado (Delgado) were involved in an on-going conflict. In the afternoon and evening of August 25, 1990, the two groups engaged in During the course of the night the two groups were involved in a series of confrontations. First, defendant, defendant's brother, and a friend left the car they were in and approached Delgado and his group who had gotten out of another car. Defendant's group retreated because they thought Delgado had a gun. Another of defendant's friends, who had remained in the car, however, told defendant that Delgado carried a bottle not a gun.
name-calling and the throwing of rocks and bottles at each other.
After this confrontation, at approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of August 26, 1990, Delgado, the victim Romero, and several other people met at a park to go to a party. Again the two groups engaged in name-calling.
Following this confrontation, defendant, Jeffrey Tracy (Tracy), and Fidel Archuleta (Archuleta) left the park to get a shotgun from Tracy's house. After returning to the park with the gun, defendant, Tracy, and Archuleta approached Delgado's group which consisted of five to ten people. Romero, the victim, was among the people in Delgado's group. Defendant's group yelled at Delgado encouraging him to fight. Delgado's group then ran towards the defendant, Tracy, and Archuleta. Defendant fired the shotgun in the air but Delgado's group continued to approach. Defendant fired a second shot in the air and began to back away. Defendant retreated under a streetlight and reloaded with the help of Archuleta. Archuleta then retreated further. Defendant waited until some of defendant's group came closer and then fired a third shot seriously injuring Romero, a member of Delgado's group.
Robert Hruska (Hruska) lived in a house near the park where the shooting occurred. Hruska saw defendant fire the third shot. At 3:00 a.m. on August 26, 1990, Hruska had just turned off his television and was going to bed. Hruska was awake in his bedroom when he heard a "muffled report." He then heard a second louder report which he identified as a firearm. At this point Hruska went to a window that faced the park and looked out. Hruska saw a group of people running in a scattered fashion. He also saw defendant standing in the street aiming a gun. Because defendant was standing underneath a street light, Hruska was able to see defendant aim the gun. Hruska testified he thought defendant was going to shoot an animal because he had the muzzle of the gun pointing slightly downwards. After aiming for five to seven seconds defendant fired. Hruska then saw a body, later identified as Romero, fall into view from behind the shopping cart where he had been hiding. Based on these facts, the jury convicted defendant of attempted criminal homicide.
During the trial a metal detector was used at the courtroom door. Everyone entering the courtroom passed through the metal detector. The Second District Court in Ogden did not routinely use a metal detector to screen people entering the courtroom. In a pre-trial conference defendant objected to the use of the metal detector. The trial court found the metal detector was necessary for the protection of defendant, the general public, and the court, in view of the high feelings in the community concerning the case.
Initially, defendant claims he was denied a fair trial because of the selective use of a metal detector at the courtroom door during his trial. The extent to which security measures are necessary to ensure a safe and orderly proceeding is within the sound discretion of the trial court and we will not overrule that exercise of discretion unless it was clearly abused. State v. Mitchell, 824 P.2d 469, 473 (Utah App.1991).
It is well established that " '[a] principle ingredient of due process is that every defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial trial,' " including the presumption of innocence. Mitchell, 824 P.2d at 473 (quoting Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F.2d 101, 104 (6th Cir.1973), cert. denied, Kennedy v. Gray, 416 U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1976, 40 L.Ed.2d 310 (1974)). Included within the Although we have never considered the precise issue of the use of metal detectors to ensure an orderly and safe trial, 1 we did consider the necessary balancing of the accused's right to the indicia of innocence against the need for security in the courtroom in State v. Mitchell. In Mitchell we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the defendant to be shackled because of his violent criminal history and his pattern of escape attempts. Id.
presumption of innocence is the " 'physical indicia of innocence.' " Mitchell, 824 P.2d at 473 (quoting Kennedy, 487 F.2d at 104). However, a defendant's right to the physical indicia of innocence must be weighed against "the essential state policy of providing security in the courtroom." Id
The United States Supreme Court has considered less intrusive security measures in balancing a defendant's right to the indicia of innocence against the need for a secure and orderly trial. In Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986), the Court considered the use of uniformed security guards in the courtroom to supplement normal security measures. The Court concluded the presence of the guards did not deny the defendant a fair trial. Id. at 570, 106 S.Ct. at 1347. The Court stressed that the use of uniformed guards, unlike dressing the defendant in prison garb or placing him in shackles, was not an inherently prejudicial practice. Id. The Court pointed out that a wide range of inferences could be drawn from the presence of the guards other than the defendant was particularly dangerous, including a necessity to protect the proceedings from external disruptions. Id. at 568-69, 106 S.Ct. at 1346. Thus, the use of uniformed guards did not unduly detract from the defendant's presumption of innocence.
Several other jurisdictions have considered the use of metal detectors at the courtroom door and have found their use did not deprive the defendant a fair trial. In State v. Shipley, 429 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa Ct.App.1988), the Iowa Court of Appeals specifically addressed the use of metal detectors at the courtroom door and found that the security practice did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial when there had been anonymous death threats against the defendant. The Shipley court found that the use of metal detectors in Shipley's trial were not inherently prejudicial. Id. at 570. The court reasoned that unlike shackling, metal detectors do not single out the accused or necessarily create the presumption that the defendant is violent or dangerous. Id. The court also found the defendant had not met his burden of proving actual prejudice from the use of this non-inherently prejudicial security device. Id. 2
The Second District Court in Ogden found that a walk-through metal detector was imperative in light of the high feelings in the community regarding the trial. The court found that the metal detector was as much for the defendant's protection as it was for the protection of the general public and the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vessey
...evidence is insufficient to support the verdict even when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.' " State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (citation omitted). In this case, defendant has failed to meet this burden. Defendant has not marshaled the evidence actually......
-
State v. Vigh, 930204-CA
...reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985); State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 (Utah App.1992), cert. denied, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993). Jury verdicts are reversed only where reasonable minds must have entertained a r......
-
State v. Arave
...action "was a substantial step toward commission of the offense") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 & n. 3 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (declining to reach the merits of the issue due to a failure to marshal but stating that even if the court had cons......
-
State v. Hayes
...of insufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 (Utah App.1992), cert. denied, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993). Reversal is appropriate "only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclu......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review
...for which defendant properly marshaled evidence, but refused to review issues for which defendant failed to marshal); State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 (Utah App. 1992) (defendant failed to marshal evidence which indicated that he intended to shoot the victim), cert, denied, 857 P.2d 948 (......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review – Revised [1]
...App. 1996); State v. Gallegos, 851 P.2d 1185,1190 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (refusing to review issues improperly marshaled); State v. Lemons, 844 P.2d 378, 381 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (failure to marshal); State v. Mincy, 838 P.2d 648, 652 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (refusing to address sufficiency ......