State v. Crespo
409 P.3d 99
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Victim accused Crespo of rape shortly before her murder; Crespo believed the accusation was a scheme to avoid a drug debt.
- Crespo and a Codefendant conspired to have Codefendant bring cocaine to Victim’s apartment to get inside and persuade her to retract the accusation; while Codefendant was inside, Crespo entered with a gun and fired three shots, killing Victim.
- Codefendant pleaded guilty to non-murder charges in exchange for dismissal of the murder charge and agreed to testify for the State; his statements to police changed over time and he initially lied.
- Ballistics excluded the specific .22 gun Codefendant borrowed from a friend as the murder weapon; Crespo’s .22 was never recovered. Various witnesses and video corroborated Crespo’s presence near Victim’s apartment and his conduct that night.
- Jury convicted Crespo of murder, aggravated burglary, and being a restricted person in possession of a firearm; on appeal he argued (1) insufficient evidence, (2) ineffective assistance for failure to request a cautionary accomplice instruction, (3) inadequate district-court inquiry into his complaints about counsel, and (4) sought a Rule 23B remand to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Crespo) | State's / Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Conviction rests on the inconsistent, highly incentivized testimony of Codefendant and is therefore insufficient | Codefendant’s testimony was corroborated by witnesses, video, texts, and ballistics excluding Codefendant’s borrowed gun | Affirmed — evidence (including circumstantial corroboration) was sufficient for the jury to infer Crespo’s guilt |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request cautionary accomplice instruction | Counsel was deficient for not requesting a statutory cautionary instruction regarding accomplice testimony | Instruction not required because the court did not find the testimony uncorroborated, and counsel covered the concerns in closing and via general credibility instruction | Affirmed — counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice shown |
| District court inquiry into conflict with counsel | Court failed to reasonably inquire into and address Crespo’s complaints about appointed counsel | Court excused jury, asked about concerns, gave time for cooling-off, allowed review of disputed exhibit, and counsel addressed discovery access | Affirmed — no plain error; court made reasonable, non-suggestive inquiry |
| Rule 23B remand to supplement record on counsel dissatisfaction | Remand needed to add facts showing ineffective assistance / coercion not in appellate record | Allegations were speculative, unsupported and failed to identify specific missing discovery or prejudice | Denied — allegations speculative and insufficient to justify remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Moore v. State, 27 N.E.3d 749 (Ind. 2015) (affirming conviction where multiple witnesses provided corroborating testimony alongside an accomplice)
- State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (discussing trial court’s duty to inquire into a defendant’s complaints about appointed counsel)
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (invited error doctrine limits appellate review when counsel affirmatively accepts instructions)
- State v. Hamilton, 70 P.3d 111 (Utah 2003) (precluding review of jury instructions under manifest injustice where counsel waived objections)