State v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 09 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20200864 |
| Citation | 511 P.3d 1164 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Respondent, v. Aaron Jay PIERCE, Petitioner. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Jeffrey S. Gray, Asst. Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent
Nathalie Skibine, Salt Lake City, for petitioner
Introduction
¶1 While riding as a passenger in his brother's truck, Aaron Jay Pierce engaged in a heated argument with a man riding on a longboard, Maluolefale Toala. The argument escalated, and Mr. Pierce eventually exited the truck, gun in hand, and shot Mr. Toala. Mr. Toala died of gunshot wounds, and the State charged Mr. Pierce with murder.
¶2 Shortly after the shooting and after receiving Miranda warnings, Mr. Pierce spoke with law enforcement and claimed generally that he killed Mr. Toala in self-defense. The district court eventually suppressed Mr. Pierce's statements to police as being obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
¶3 Because Mr. Pierce shot Mr. Toala at a crowded intersection, the State called more than a dozen witnesses to provide testimony on the events surrounding the shooting. Though these witnesses generally agreed that Mr. Pierce and Mr. Toala engaged in a heated argument and that Mr. Pierce shot Mr. Toala, their testimonies differed in several important ways—particularly as to whether Mr. Toala was aggressive or threatening toward Mr. Pierce. Mr. Pierce moved for a directed verdict after the State's case in chief, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Mr. Pierce was not acting in self-defense. The district court denied the motion.
¶4 Mr. Pierce took the stand at trial. He testified that Mr. Toala was being aggressive, had shouted several times "I'm going to f*** you up motherf***er," had threatened Mr. Pierce's brother, and was in the act of swinging his longboard at Mr. Pierce when Mr. Pierce shot. The State impeached Mr. Pierce's testimony by pointing out that it contained significantly more exculpatory detail than the story he provided to the police. The jury convicted Mr. Pierce of manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense.
¶5 Mr. Pierce appealed to the court of appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict and that the State's impeachment improperly commented on his right to remain silent. The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished order.
¶6 Mr. Pierce now asks us to reverse the court of appeals, arguing it erred in affirming the denial of his motion for directed verdict and by holding that the State's impeachment did not violate his constitutional rights. We affirm. Because Mr. Pierce did not object to the State's impeachment, we review his constitutional claim for plain error, which requires that any alleged error must have been obvious to the district court.1 Even assuming it was error for the district court to allow the State's impeachment, because the law on the issue is unsettled, any alleged error would not have been obvious to the district court. We also affirm the district court's denial of Mr. Pierce's motion for directed verdict because sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's verdict of manslaughter by imperfect self-defense.
¶7 On May 28, 2016, Mr. Pierce was riding as a passenger in a pickup truck driven by his brother (Brother). The truck was pulling a trailer because Mr. Pierce was helping Brother move. Mr. Toala walked past the truck carrying a longboard, and Brother made a loud yelping noise that startled Mr. Toala. Mr. Toala followed the truck until it stopped at a busy intersection, after which a verbal argument ensued that eventually concluded with Mr. Pierce exiting the vehicle, gun in hand, and shooting Mr. Toala. Mr. Toala died from gunshot wounds.
¶8 Police arrived at the scene shortly after the shooting. Mr. Pierce was identified as a suspect, and he told the police he wanted a lawyer. Mr. Pierce was transported to the police station, was informed of his Miranda rights, and agreed to speak. Mr. Pierce gave his account of what happened to the police and claimed he shot Mr. Toala in self-defense. But the statements were later suppressed after the district court found the police impermissibly questioned Mr. Pierce after he requested an attorney.
¶9 The State charged Mr. Pierce with murder. At trial, the State called thirteen witnesses (consisting of motorists and other individuals at the scene) to testify about the shooting. Their accounts varied. Though nearly all testified that Mr. Pierce and Mr. Toala were yelling at each other, none could make out exactly what was said. Some testified that Mr. Toala was being aggressive and had threatened Mr. Pierce with his longboard, while others testified that Mr. Toala was not being aggressive and had never threatened Mr. Pierce. Witness testimony also varied regarding how far apart Mr. Pierce and Mr. Toala were during the argument, with distances ranging between inches and eighteen to nineteen feet.
¶10 Most importantly, the witnesses differed in their accounts of what Mr. Toala was doing with his longboard when Mr. Pierce fired the gun. Many witnesses testified that Mr. Toala was holding up the longboard defensively as a shield. Others testified that Mr. Toala was making threatening gestures after Mr. Pierce pulled out the gun. Forensic evidence (and the longboard itself) confirmed that Mr. Toala was shot through the longboard, but a few witnesses testified that the longboard could not have been hit by a bullet.
¶11 Mr. Pierce moved for a directed verdict after the State's case in chief, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove Mr. Pierce was not acting in self-defense at the time of the shooting. The district court denied the motion.
¶12 Mr. Pierce then testified. He said that after Brother yelped and startled Mr. Toala, Mr. Toala yelled "f*** you punk" and flipped them off. Mr. Toala then followed them to an intersection, and when he caught up to the truck, Mr. Pierce said Mr. Toala forcefully punched the trailer. According to Mr. Pierce, Mr. Toala then yelled "I'm going to f*** you up, motherf***er" and picked up his longboard as if to spear Mr. Pierce in the face through the passenger window. Mr. Pierce then tried to roll up his window but was unable to. It was at this point that Mr. Pierce claimed he exited the truck with his gun and told Mr. Toala to "back the f*** up" and "get on the ground." In response to Mr. Pierce pulling out a gun, Mr. Pierce testified that Mr. Toala screamed "shoot me" and started yelling at Brother. Mr. Pierce claimed he screamed at Mr. Toala to stop, to which Mr. Toala responded by yelling Mr. Pierce then testified that he tried to get back in the truck, which prompted Mr. Toala to yell "[s]hoot me you bitch" and "I'll f*** you up motherf***er." Mr. Pierce claimed Mr. Toala then swung the longboard at him, at which point Mr. Pierce shot Mr. Toala.
¶13 The State cross-examined Mr. Pierce, seeking to undermine his credibility by pointing out that his trial testimony contained substantially more detail than his statements to the police on the day of the shooting. Specifically, the State pointed out that although Mr. Pierce used the word "f***" three times with the police, he never told them that Mr. Toala yelled "I'm going to f*** you up, motherf***er." The State also questioned Mr. Pierce about the fact that he never mentioned to the police that he could not roll up his window. During closing argument, the State again focused on the differences between Mr. Pierce's statements to the police and his trial testimony, stating that "[i]t's amazing that most of the story that you heard from [Mr. Pierce] on the stand was not told" to police. Mr. Pierce's attorney did not object to the State's questioning or its comments during closing argument.
¶14 The jury found Mr. Pierce guilty of manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense, meaning it found that Mr. Pierce "acted under a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification" for shooting Mr. Toala but that the shooting "was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances." Mr. Pierce appealed to the court of appeals and challenged his conviction on two grounds. First, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because (1) witness accounts supporting the verdict were inherently improbable and (2) the verdict was based on speculation and conjecture. Second, Mr. Pierce argued the State violated due process by commenting on the differences between his statements to the police and his trial testimony, which he claimed was an improper comment on his right to remain silent.
¶15 The court of appeals upheld Mr. Pierce's conviction in an unpublished order of affirmance. It first held that Mr. Pierce's inherent improbability argument was unpreserved, so it reviewed the issue for plain error. The court determined that no witness account rose to a "level of physical impossibility or apparent falsehood" that would render the account inherently improbable, and it held that it was "for the jury to resolve the differences and conflicts in the evidence." The court then disposed of Mr. Pierce's speculation and conjecture argument by holding that the fact that "the jury was called upon to resolve conflicts in the evidence does not render its verdict speculative."
¶16 The court of appeals next addressed Mr. Pierce's argument that the State improperly commented on his silence by highlighting the differences between his trial testimony and his statements to police, reviewing the issue for plain error because Mr. Pierce's attorney never objected to the State's comments. The court determined that no error occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K.T. v. S.T. (In re Interest of A.B.)
..., 2017 UT 76, ¶ 14, 416 P.3d 443.53 DeBry v. Noble , 889 P.2d 428, 444 (Utah 1995) ; see also State v. Pierce , 2022 UT 22, ¶ 29 n.29, 511 P.3d 1164 (concluding that an argument had been waived because the appellant "never raised th[e] issue before the court of appeals").54 In re A.B. , 202......