State v. Barner, 464 P.3d 190

On June 18, 2017, Brett Barner grabbed an 18-pack of beer from a 7‑Eleven and left without paying; the clerk chased him and stood in front of Barner’s car as he got in.
Barner accelerated and the car grazed/hit the clerk as he exited the parking lot; the clerk was not injured.
A Salt Lake City detective reviewed store surveillance and drafted a report stating the footage “does not show that the suspect intentionally hit the clerk.”
The State successfully moved to exclude the detective’s report and testimony at trial; the court found the report admissible as a business record but excluded the detective’s lay opinion under Utah R. Evid. 701 as not helpful to the jury.
The clerk testified and the surveillance video was shown; the clerk acknowledged it was possible Barner was merely trying to drive off rather than intentionally hit him.
The jury acquitted Barner of aggravated robbery but convicted him of the lesser included offense of robbery; Barner appealed the evidence exclusion and the denial of his directed‑verdict motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the detective’s report and testimony about what the surveillance video showed were admissible	The State argued exclusion was proper because the detective’s opinion was lay testimony that would not be helpful to the jury under Rule 701	Barner argued the report was admissible under the business‑records exception (Rule 803(6)), relying on State v. Bertul	Court affirmed exclusion under Rule 701: the detective’s opinion added nothing the jury couldn’t determine from the video; exclusion was not prejudicial
Whether the court erred in denying Barner’s motion for a directed verdict on aggravated robbery (and whether evidence supported robbery)	The State argued the evidence was sufficient to show Barner knowingly used force or fear of immediate force during the theft	Barner argued the State failed to prove intentional or knowing use of force required for aggravated robbery (and insufficient evidence for robbery)	Court held denial proper: viewing evidence favorably to the State, jury reasonably could find Barner knowingly used force or fear of force (robbery), so directed verdict was not warranted

State v. Bertul, 664 P.2d 1181 (Utah 1983) (defendant may invoke business‑records hearsay exception for police reports)
In re Estate of Kesler, 702 P.2d 86 (Utah 1985) (trial judge has broad discretion to exclude lay opinion testimony under Rule 701 as unhelpful)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1998) (defendant’s right to present a defense is subject to reasonable evidentiary rules)
Jenson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 82 P.3d 1076 (Utah 2003) (erroneous evidentiary rulings require a showing of harm to be reversible)
State v. Cegers, 440 P.3d 924 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (harmless‑error standard: defendant must show reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome absent the error)