State of Utah v. Hearon

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Carlos Maurice Hearon,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020663-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 26, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 211

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Roger S. Dutson

Attorneys: Randall W. Richards, Ogden, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Davis, and Thorne.

THORNE, Judge:

Carlos Maurice Hearon was stopped for questioning in an auto theft investigation and then arrested for an outstanding warrant. After being searched at the police station, a plastic bag containing methamphetamine was found in Hearon's right, front pocket. Hearon was then charged and convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance, a third-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Annotated section 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (2002).

On appeal, Hearon argues that the trial court exceeded its permitted range of discretion in admitting evidence that he was a transient, that his children were in state custody, and that he was wanted for questioning in an automobile theft investigation.

While there may be valid reasons supporting the admission of this information, we need not decide whether the trial court exceeded its permitted range of discretion because any error is harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.(1) See State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86,¶45, 55 P.3d 573 (noting that "'[n]otwithstanding error by the trial court, we will not reverse a conviction if we find that the error was harmless'" (citation omitted)); State v. Loose, 2000 UT 11,¶10 n.1, 994 P.2d 1237 ("An error is harmless when it is '"sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings."'" (citations omitted)).

Here, the State introduced uncontroverted evidence that Hearon was arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant, was transported to jail, and was then searched. During this search, an officer found a "small plastic baggie with white residue" in the defendant's right, front pocket. The officer asked Hearon about the plastic bag and he responded that "it looked like meth, but it was not his." A criminalist later testified that the bag did, in fact, contain methamphetamine. Thus, the State introduced sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that Hearon knowingly possessed an illegal substance. In light of this overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence of guilt, there is no reasonable likelihood that the admission of the evidence about which Hearon now complains affected the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

1. Additionally, as to the introduction of evidence regarding the auto theft investigation, the State informed the jury that the police officer first contacted Hearon in regards to an investigation of an automobile theft, but it made clear that Hearon was never charged with a crime regarding that investigation and specifically told the jury not to be distracted by the auto theft investigation.