State v. Doolittle

State v. Doolittle

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Steven Jay Doolittle,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030703-CA
 

F I L E D
(September 10, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 309

 

-----

Third District, West Valley Department

The Honorable Pat B. Brian

Attorneys: Lori Seppi and Shannon N. Romero, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Jackson.

BENCH, Associate Presiding Judge:

    Steven Doolittle appeals his conviction for failing to respond to an officer's signal to stop.

    We assume, for the sake of argument, that Doolittle preserved at trial his claim that the written statement of his girlfriend (Leonhardt) should not have been allowed in the jury room. We also assume, for argument's sake, that the trial court erred in allowing Leonhardt's written statement into the jury room during deliberations. We nevertheless affirm because the error, if any, was harmless and non prejudicial.

    "'Harmless' errors are 'errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.'" State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1991) (citation omitted). Here, the court's sending of Leonhardt's statement to the jury room did not present a "reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings," id. (quotations and citation omitted), for at least two reasons.

    First, Leonhardt's statement had already been read into evidence. The jury undisputedly heard Leonhardt read her previously written statement. In fact, there was nothing significant in Leonhardt's written statement that added to or detracted from her oral testimony. See State v. Kell, 2002 UT 106,¶37, 61 P.3d 1019. Leonhardt mentioned in her written statement that she had let Doolittle take her blue car. In her oral testimony, Leonhardt merely testified that she could not "recall exactly" what her statement was to Officer Burke.

    Second, the testimony of Officer Burke relating to his phone investigation clearly identified Doolitle as the driver of the vehicle. A few hours after speaking with Leonhardt, Officer Burke called a phone number given by Leonhardt. A man answered, and Officer Burke asked for Doolittle. The man said that he was Doolittle. Officer Burke then asked if the man was driving a blue car in the area where Officer Burke had been enforcing the speed limit. The man said, "Yes." Officer Burke asked why he did not stop as directed. The man stated that he did not stop because he was afraid that there was a warrant out for his arrest. Officer Burke then confirmed with Doolittle some of the details of the incident. Thus, Officer Burke's testimony sufficiently identified Doolittle as the driver of the blue car.

    Therefore, we affirm Doolittle's conviction.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge