State v. Clark
2014 UT App 56
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- On April 29, 2007, defendant Jason Kyle Clark and two others entered A.S.’s home with guns; during the encounter Clark shot and killed K.K., shot A.S. and D.L. (both survived), and killed A.S.’s service dog. Clark later was arrested and a .40-caliber Beretta was recovered from the vehicle in which he was a passenger.
- The State linked the Beretta to both the Salt Lake shooting and an earlier March 12, 2007 West Valley shooting through expert firearms identification testimony.
- A.S. and D.L. separately identified Clark from six-photo lineups days after the shooting; Clark moved to suppress those identifications and challenged the admissibility of firearms-expert testimony and the exclusion of his own designated expert.
- The trial court admitted the State’s firearms expert, excluded Clark’s expert, admitted West Valley other-acts evidence under Utah R. Evid. 404(b), and denied suppression of eyewitness IDs; a jury convicted Clark on multiple counts (aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated cruelty to animals).
- Clark appealed, raising challenges to expert testimony, admission of 404(b) evidence, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, admissibility of eyewitness identifications, alleged instructional errors (accomplice liability and mens rea for aggravated robbery and cruelty to animals), and cumulative error.
- The appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding any errors were either proper rulings, harmless, or non-prejudicial when viewed in context of overwhelming evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of State firearms-expert testimony / exclusion of Defendant’s expert | State: Wakefield’s methods meet Rule 702 reliability and were properly admitted; Lamagna lacked qualification | Clark: Wakefield unreliable; Lamagna should have been admitted to rebut | Court: Even if admission/exclusion were erroneous, error was harmless given strong eyewitness and other evidence; upheld admission and exclusion as not prejudicial |
| Admission of prior West Valley shooting under Rule 404(b) | State: Other-act evidence relevant to identity (same gun/person) and probative value outweighs prejudice | Clark: Prior-acts evidence unfairly prejudicial and character-based | Court: Trial court scrupulously applied Shickles factors; 404(b) admission for identity proper and not an abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during rebuttal | State: Rebuttal comments were fair comment on evidence and defense theory | Clark: Prosecutor disparaged defense (said counsel/defendant didn’t believe their defense; accused counsel of trying to confuse jury; used pejorative language) | Court: Some remarks (claiming counsel/defendant didn’t believe defense or sought to confuse jury) were improper but isolated; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no plain error or ineffective assistance shown |
| Eyewitness identifications reliability & suppression | State: IDs reliable under totality of circumstances (Ramirez factors) | Clark: IDs were unreliable and suggestive; should've been suppressed | Held: Trial court properly evaluated Ramirez factors (opportunity, attention, capacity, spontaneity/consistency, event nature); IDs admissible |
| Jury instructions — accomplice liability; mens rea for aggravated robbery and cruelty to animals | State: Instructions read as whole adequately conveyed required mens rea; omissions not prejudicial | Clark: Accomplice instruction ambiguous re: required intent; robbery/animal-cruelty instructions omitted required mens rea elements | Court: Accomplice instruction acceptable when read with specific offense instructions; omission of intent-to-deprive (robbery) and definition of recklessness (animal cruelty) harmless because defendant conceded guilt on non-murder counts if found to be shooter; no reversible error |
| Cumulative error | — | Clark: cumulative effect of asserted errors undermined trial fairness | Court: Cumulative errors (one improper prosecutorial remark and one instructional omission plus assumed errors) did not undermine confidence in trial; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert testimony admissibility)
- State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (framework for other-acts evidence and doctrine of chances)
- State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) (totality-of-circumstances Ramirez factors for eyewitness ID reliability)
- State v. Honie, 57 P.3d 977 (Utah 2002) (harmless-error standard regarding likelihood of a different outcome)
- State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (guidance on accomplice-liability instruction and mens rea requirements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)