Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73

Background

Police responded to a call and searched the house where Ricardo Carrera rented a room; Officer Dew identified himself and asked Carrera to come into the living room.
Carrera acted hostile and resisted arrest; Officer Dew arrested and searched him incident to arrest.
Officer Dew found an unsigned Social Security card in Carrera’s wallet bearing another person’s name (Ms. Alvin). Carrera said he did not know her.
Carrera was convicted by a jury of interference with an arresting officer and unlawful possession of another’s identification document; the court of appeals affirmed the unlawful-possession conviction.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether evidence was sufficient to show Carrera knew he was not entitled to possess the Social Security card (the mens rea required by Utah Code § 76-6-1105(2)(a)).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carrera)	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove Carrera knew he was not entitled to possess another's Social Security card	Carrera’s conduct, his admission he did not know the cardholder, and the card’s location in his wallet support a reasonable inference of knowledge he lacked entitlement	Mere possession and lack of identification of the cardholder do not prove knowledge of lack of entitlement; innocent explanations (e.g., found card) are possible	Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove required mens rea
Whether an inference may be drawn from Carrera’s limited post-arrest statements or silence	The totality of evidence (including Carrera saying he didn’t know the owner and not volunteering an explanation) permits an inference of guilt	Drawing an adverse inference from post-arrest silence or partial answers raises Miranda and due-process concerns and was not argued or briefed; City did not rely on silence at trial	Court declined to draw an inference from silence/partial answer and refused to order supplemental briefing on constitutional issues
What mens rea the statute requires (definition of "knowledge that he is not entitled")	Equates lack of owner permission with knowledge of lack of entitlement	Statute requires more than mere lack of owner permission — some additional indicia of wrongful possession (e.g., theft, use, forgery, long retention)	Mens rea requires knowledge of absence of permission plus additional evidence indicating nefarious intent
Whether appellate court should consider reasonable inferences not pressed by parties	City suggested such inferences at oral argument/court of appeals; courts may consider reasonable inferences from record	Appellate review must give all reasonable inferences to the verdict regardless of briefing; declining an unbriefed but reasonable inference improperly narrows review	Majority declined to entertain unbriefed inference here due to constitutional concerns and scant record; dissent would have considered it and ordered supplemental briefing

Key Cases Cited

Ramsay v. Kane Cnty. Human Res. Special Serv. Dist., 322 P.3d 1168 (Utah 2014) (standard of review on certiorari)
State v. Shumway, 63 P.3d 94 (Utah 2002) (review of evidence and inferences in sufficiency claims)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 846 (Utah 2000) (standard for overturning convictions for insufficiency)
State v. Nickles, 728 P.2d 128 (Utah 1986) (circumstantial evidence may establish guilt)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (verdicts cannot rest on remote or speculative possibilities)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda waiver and limits on drawing adverse inferences from post-arrest silence)
Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986) (Miranda warnings imply that silence will carry no penalty)
State v. Ashcroft, 349 P.3d 664 (Utah 2015) (review evidence and all reasonable inferences)
State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (deferential sufficiency standard; inferences must have basis in logic and human experience)