State of Utah v. Coria

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Enrique Coria,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990327-CA

F I L E D
September 8, 2000 2000 UT App 257 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Roger S. Dutson

Attorneys:
Kevin P. Sullivan and Ronald W. Perkins, Ogden, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Thorne.

JACKSON, Associate Presiding Judge:

Defendant appeals his conviction of first degree murder and presents six issues for our consideration. First, he argues that the trial court improperly removed two potential jurors for cause. Defendant has not alleged or shown that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the trial court's removal of the two jurors. Thus, we conclude that even if the trial court's strike was an abuse of discretion, Defendant has failed to show grounds for relief. See State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439, 444 (Utah 1996) ("Because [Defendant] does not attempt to show that any member of the jury that convicted him was partial or incompetent, [his argument] must fail.").

Second, Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant concedes that Officer Mills's traffic stop was lawful. As to the officer's removal of the guns from Defendant's truck, we conclude he was entitled to do so as a reasonable precaution to ensure his, and the other officer's, safety. See State v. O'Brien, 959 P.2d 647, 649 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Defendant also contends that Officer Ledford's inquiries unlawfully detained him. However, the record shows that Officer Ledford developed a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was involved with Moreno's murder before Officer Mills's traffic stop was complete. Thus, any detention beyond the traffic stop was also permissible, see id., and Defendant's statements regarding the murder were not tainted by any prior police illegality.

Third, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss two of the alternatives in the murder statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203 (1999). He contends there is no way to know whether the jury unanimously decided which of the three alternatives Defendant was guilty of. At trial, Defendant argued only that the State did not present a prima facie case on any of the three alternatives; he did not make this jury unanimity argument. Thus, Defendant failed to properly preserve this argument. However, we would also reject Defendant's argument on the merits. "[A] defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the crime was committed, or by which of several alternative methods or modes, or under which interpretation of the evidence so long as there is substantial evidence to support each of the methods, modes, or manners charged." State v. Powell, 872 P.2d 1027, 1032 (Utah 1994) (quoting State v. Russell, 733 P.2d 162, 165 (Utah 1987)). In this case, substantial evidence was presented to support each of the three alternatives of section 76-5-203.

Fourth, Defendant argues the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury was an incorrect statement of the law and was misleading to the jury. We conclude the trial court's answer to the jury's question was a correct statement of the law, and thus was not misleading to the jury. See id.; see also State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1231 (Utah 1997) ("We review jury instructions in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case.").

Fifth, Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial because the instruction was misleading and confusing. Because we have concluded the instruction was proper, we also affirm the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial.

Finally, Defendant argues insufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. We review all the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict. See State v. Gonzalez, 2000 UT App 136,¶10, 2 P.3d 954. Defendant must marshal the evidence in support of the jury's verdict, and then show why that evidence is nonetheless insufficient to support the verdict. See State v. Rudolph, 2000 UT App 155,¶18, 3 P.3d 192. Defendant has failed to carry his burden of marshaling the evidence. Moreover, our review of the record shows ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Affirmed.
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge