State v. Biel, 484 P.3d 1172

Jawnie Wey was killed by a bullet fired from a Mercedes; four occupants were identified, including Koak Biel. Two occupants (Kuajian and Mina) initially told police Biel fired; both later recanted.
The State planned to call Kuajian and Mina; if they recanted at trial, the State intended to impeach them with their prior inconsistent, unsworn statements to police.
Biel objected, arguing the State could not call witnesses primarily to create impeachment opportunities; the district court denied the State’s motion in limine to admit the prior statements.
The district court relied on federal case United States v. Hogan and on policy concerns (confusion, unreliability, and the risk of convictions resting solely on unsworn statements), and treated Ramsey as cautionary.
The State sought interlocutory review; the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court misinterpreted Utah Rules 607 and 801(d)(1)(A) and that the State did not invite the error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah Rules permit calling a witness the proponent believes may give testimony harmful to the proponent, then impeaching with the witness’s prior inconsistent unsworn statements	State: Rules 607 and 801(d)(1)(A) plainly allow calling the witness and introducing prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence	Biel: Allowing this is a subterfuge (per Hogan); the State would be creating inconsistency to avoid hearsay limits and risk conviction on unreliable unsworn statements	Court: Reversed. Under Utah rules, the State may call such witnesses and impeach with prior inconsistent unsworn statements; Hogan’s federal rationale does not apply because Utah’s 801(d)(1)(A) is broader
Whether the State invited the district court’s error by conceding improper intent	Biel: The State conceded it would be improper to call a witness with the intent to impeach, thus inviting error	State: The concession was responsive to the court’s characterization and not an independent, affirmative misrepresentation of law	Court: No invited error. The court led the discussion; the State’s statements were contextual and did not preclude appellate review

United States v. Hogan, 763 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1985) (federal rule rationale: prosecution may not call a known-hostile witness solely to introduce otherwise inadmissible impeachment evidence)
State v. Ramsey, 782 P.2d 480 (Utah 1989) (prior inconsistent unsworn statement is unreliable and insufficient alone to sustain conviction)
State v. Stricklan, 477 P.3d 1251 (Utah 2020) (prior inconsistent statements are substantive under Utah Rule 801(d)(1)(A))
State v. Lowther, 398 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2017) (courts must follow plain text of evidence rules rather than extra-textual doctrines)
State v. McNeil, 365 P.3d 699 (Utah 2016) (doctrine of invited error: counsel’s clear affirmative misrepresentation can bar appellate relief)