State v. Cecil, 288 P.3d 22

Cecil was charged after a March 30, 2009 incident where he, driving Quintero's truck, pursued Stevens and attempted to strike him; Stevens avoided a crash at first, then Cecil accelerated into a damaged engine hoist protecting Stevens, damaging the hoist.
Cecil returned to the parking lot and nearly struck Evans, then succeeded in hitting Stevens by colliding with him while Stevens braced himself against the vehicle; Cecil fled the scene again.
At trial, Cecil was convicted of one count of aggravated assault (Stevens), one count of criminal mischief (damaging the hoist), and one count of reckless driving; he was acquitted of aggravated assault on Evans; the court dismissed the count for leaving the scene of an accident.
Cecil appeals arguing (1) insufficient evidence for the criminal mischief conviction, (2) improper exclusion of certain impeachment and prior bad act evidence, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) a Brady violation; the district court’s rulings are reviewed for harmless error or de novo, and the briefing on several issues is deemed inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for criminal mischief	Cecil argues there was no intent to damage the hoist	State asserts Cecil intended to damage the hoist via the collision	Evidence supported intent to damage hoist; conviction affirmed
Admissibility of impeachment and other prior conduct evidence	Cecil contends exclusion harmed self-defense claim	State allowed broad discretion on evidentiary rulings	Issue not preserved adequately briefed; harmless error review applied where appropriate
Ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal	Cecil claims trial counsel failed to interview witnesses and obtain recordings	State disputes efficacy claims	Briefing insufficient to review; affirm judgment without addressing merits
Brady violation claim	Cecil asserts exculpatory recordings were suppressed	State denies material exculpatory evidence was withheld	Claim inadequately briefed; not preserved for review

State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22 (Utah Supreme Court (2003)) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; governing review of trial verdicts)
State v. Clark, 20 P.3d 300 (Utah Supreme Court (2001)) (evidence sufficiency standard; inference of intent)
State v. Robertson, 122 P.3d 895 (Utah Court of Appeals (2005)) (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
State v. Colwell, 994 P.2d 177 (Utah Supreme Court (2000)) (harmless error review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah Supreme Court (2005)) (Brady nondisclosure requires material and exculpatory information affecting outcome)