State v. Marquina
| Citation | 478 P.3d 37 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180994,20180994 |
| Parties | The STATE of Utah, Respondent, v. Raymond Jesus MARQUINA, Petitioner. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Sarah J. Carlquist, Salt Lake City, for petitioner
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Jeffrey S. Gray, Asst. Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent
INTRODUCTION
¶1 Raymond Jesus Marquina was convicted of aggravated robbery after he shot a man five times during an attempted robbery. Marquina appealed his conviction, arguing that he was denied his right to a jury trial because at least one juror reportedly slept during the proceedings.1 Because he had not raised this concern in the trial court, the court of appeals analyzed it under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. It concluded that the trial court did not plainly err when it did not identify which jurors may have nodded off, question them to ensure they were still qualified to deliberate, and replace them if necessary. State v. Marquina , 2018 UT App 219, ¶ 50, 437 P.3d 628. And it held that defense counsel was not ineffective for not asking the trial court to take these steps. Id.
¶2 Marquina petitioned for certiorari, which we granted. We affirm.
¶3 A man named Michael Flores received notice that he was going to be evicted from his Magna apartment, so he decided to rob the victim in this case because he had heard that "[he] carried a lot of loose cash." Flores enlisted the help of Leann Velazquez, Ricardo Smith, and Marquina.3 The group left Magna in the late afternoon or early evening and drove to West Valley.4 After a series of internet searches the group was able to locate the victim's house.
¶4 Once there, Flores and Marquina got out "to run down to [the] house and rob [the victim]." But as the duo neared the home, Flores "got nervous" and Marquina approached the home alone.
¶5 The victim and his wife had been at the symphony that night, returning home around 10:30 p.m. Shortly after entering the house, they heard a knock at the door, a ring of the doorbell, and more knocking. The victim went to the front door and opened it, finding a person wearing a blue and white streaked bandana5 and a hat covering his head so that only his eyeballs were visible. The person said something that the victim did not understand and immediately began firing a pistol. In all, Marquina shot the victim five times in the face and neck.
¶6 Hearing the shots, the victim's wife ran to the top of the stairs, which looked down on the front door. From her vantage point she saw an arm with "a dark-colored covering" on it, holding a pistol in a gloved hand. She witnessed "three of the shots go off."
¶7 Marquina and Flores then ran to the circulating vehicle and jumped in the backseat. The group headed back to Magna.
¶8 A neighbor heard the shots and looked out of his window. He "saw two [people] run away." He described both runners as wearing black hoodies.
¶9 Another neighbor ran after the shooter. But she found "nobody in sight." She walked back to the victim's house and happened to kick a black ski mask in the driveway. Law enforcement collected the ski mask and sent it to the crime lab for DNA testing. DNA found on the ski mask was a match for Flores.
¶10 About a month after the incident, two law enforcement officers questioned Flores and Velazquez at the Adult Probation and Parole office. Initially, Flores and Velazquez were reluctant to provide information. But they eventually implicated Smith and Marquina, who were arrested the next day.
¶11 Marquina was charged with aggravated robbery with a group enhancement. He pleaded not guilty and a three-day jury trial was set.
¶12 On the second day of trial, during defense counsel's cross-examination of one of the law enforcement officers, defense counsel paused his questioning to ask the court for a sidebar. The State then informed the court, Defense counsel and the court both concurred and a recess was taken.
¶13 The State raised the issue of a drowsy juror again on the third and final day of trial. The court had finished reading the jury instructions and recessed the trial for lunch. Upon returning from the lunch break, the court said to counsel, "talking about the alternate [juror], which is generally according to the rule the last person, unless both of you want to agree to somebody else."
¶15 The court responded, "[n]o. 6, the first lady that I have noticed."6
¶16 Defense counsel then stated, Perhaps suggesting that the juror could have been listening despite shuttered eyes, defense counsel described a federal judge who is often mistaken for being asleep but rather is "just resting his eyes" and "not only has he been listening but he has been processing everything in a very high way." Counsel finished,
¶17 The court declined to substitute the alternate juror for the sleepy juror, stating, "[w]ell, then, we will leave it as the final person."
¶19 The court seemed to dismiss the suggestion, stating, "I think everyone tried to stay awake." But the court added, 7
¶20 Neither party mentioned juror inattentiveness after closing arguments. The jury convicted Marquina of aggravated robbery with a group enhancement. He appealed.
¶21 In the court of appeals, Marquina argued that his Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury was violated based on the State's report that a juror slept during his trial. State v. Marquina , 2018 UT App 219, ¶ 17, 437 P.3d 628. Since this issue was not preserved, the court of appeals reviewed it under the plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel doctrines. Id. It rejected the claim and affirmed Marquina's conviction. Id. ¶ 50.
¶22 We granted certiorari on the following questions: (1) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding [Marquina] had failed to demonstrate that the [trial] court plainly erred in declining to inquire into the attentiveness of a juror"; and (2) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding [Marquina] had failed to demonstrate his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in responding to observations that a juror may have been sleeping."
¶23 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(a).
¶24 "On certiorari, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Baker , 2010 UT 18, ¶ 7, 229 P.3d 650.
¶25 Marquina argues that the court of appeals erred in affirming his conviction. He asserts that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because at least one juror may have slept during his trial. He asks that we reverse the court of appeals’ decision to the contrary and remand for a new trial.
¶26 Because Marquina did not raise this issue at trial, the court of appeals analyzed whether (1) the trial court plainly erred in its handling of the State's reports of a sleeping juror, and (2) defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting that the sleeping juror be identified, questioned, and replaced. State v. Marquina , 2018 UT App 219, ¶¶ 26–39, 437 P.3d 628. We first review the court of appeals’ determination that Marquina did not establish plain error. Then we turn to the court of appeals’ determination that Marquina's counsel was not ineffective.
¶27 Marquina contends that the trial court plainly erred when, after receiving two reliable reports of at least one sleeping juror, it did not identify and voir dire8 the juror to determine if the juror had missed portions of the trial. He asserts that the court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise.
¶28 We must first address the State's argument that we should not review this claim for plain error, because any error was invited by Marquina. "[A]n error is invited when counsel encourages the trial court to make an erroneous ruling." State v. McNeil , 2016 UT 3, ¶ 17, 365 P.3d 699. This typically occurs when "the context reveals that counsel independently made a clear affirmative representation of the erroneous principle." Id. ¶ 18. Affirmative acquiescence is insufficient to invite the error. Id. ¶ 21.
¶29 We agree with the court of appeals that defense counsel's responses to the State's reports of a sleeping juror do not rise to the level of invited error. State v. Marquina , 2018 UT App 219, ¶ 25, 437 P.3d 628. Defense counsel did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
...this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Marquina , 2020 UT 66, ¶ 24, 478 P.3d 37 (citation omitted). "The correctness of the court of appeals’ decision turns, in part, on whether it accurately reviewed......
-
Kirkland v. Carlon (In re Heater)
...this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Marquina , 2020 UT 66, ¶ 24, 478 P.3d 37 (citation omitted).ANALYSIS¶12 On certiorari, Kirkland contends the court of appeals erred in affirming the district cou......
-
State v. Grant
...said, "Right." In other words, both Grant and the State invited the court to make factual findings beyond the plea. See generally State v. Marquina , 2020 UT 66, ¶ 28, 478 P.3d 37 ("An error is invited when counsel encourages the trial court to make an erroneous ruling." (cleaned up)). Thus......
-
Cove At Little Valley Homeowners Ass'n v. Traverse Ridge Special Serv. Dist.
...prejudicial remarks in the prosecution's closing statement), abrogated by State v. Hummel , 2017 UT 19, 393 P.3d 314 ; State v. Marquina , 2020 UT 66, ¶¶ 1, 30–33, 478 P.3d 37 (analyzing whether a juror sleeping during court proceedings constituted plain error in an aggravated robbery case)......