State v. Dozah
368 P.3d 863
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim Kelly, indebted to a meth supplier, was beaten, tied to a chair, and threatened by several assailants; defendant Dozah arrived later, repeated threats, and did not physically assault Kelly.
- Dozah drove Kelly and others; while driving to a bus plan he and Chris later stopped on a closed snowy road, removed Kelly from the car, threatened him, then drove off, leaving Kelly in freezing conditions; Kelly survived.
- Dozah testified he intervened to prevent further harm, volunteered to take Kelly to a bus station, and claimed fear for his own safety; he denied instigating the violence.
- At trial Dozah requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of compulsion; the district court refused, finding insufficient evidence to support compulsion.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether leaving Kelly in the canyon constituted aggravated assault; the court replied in writing directing the jury back to the instructions and stating the question "must be decided without my help," without consulting or notifying counsel.
- Jury convicted Dozah of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault; the district court denied a new-trial motion. On appeal the court affirmed the refusal to instruct on compulsion but vacated both convictions and reversed the denial of a new trial based on the court’s mid-deliberation written response.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dozah's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dozah was entitled to a compulsion jury instruction | No—evidence did not show he was coerced to commit the crimes; threats were not conditional on his participation | He acted under compulsion or to mitigate imminent harm to Kelly and thus needed the instruction | Affirmed: no compulsion instruction required; evidence did not present statutory compulsion (coerced to commit offense) |
| Whether the court’s written response to the jury during deliberations improperly instructed the jury or violated procedural rules by doing so ex parte | The note’s second question could implicate attendant circumstances; court’s reply merely referred jurors to instructions | The written reply could be read as a new, misleading substantive instruction given without counsel present, violating rights to counsel and presence | Reversed: the response plausibly contradicted or confused the law on aggravated assault and was prejudicial; aggravated assault conviction vacated |
| Whether the error as to aggravated assault required vacating aggravated kidnapping conviction | The State argued any error only affected the elevated element and asked for lesser-included conviction | Dozah argued both convictions infected and sought new trial | Court vacated aggravated kidnapping too because jury could have relied on flawed aggravated-assault finding to satisfy aggravated-kidnapping element; declined to enter lesser convictions |
| Whether appellate court should enter convictions for lesser included offenses (simple kidnapping or unlawful detention) | State asked to enter simple kidnapping | Dozah did not concede sufficiency; argued for new trial | Denied: appellate court could not conclude jury necessarily found elements of lesser offenses and error was instructional not evidentiary; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (court must give requested affirmative-defense instruction if evidence provides any reasonable basis)
- State v. Ott, 763 P.2d 810 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (compulsion requires specific, imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and no reasonable legal alternative)
- State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89 (Utah 1981) (trial court must correct demonstrable juror confusion about statutory language with counsel input)
- State v. Kruger, 6 P.3d 1116 (Utah 2000) (standard of review for refusal to give requested jury instruction)
- United States v. Mondestin, [citation="535 F. App'x 819"] (11th Cir. 2013) (supplemental jury instruction that changes an earlier instruction can confuse jurors and require reversal)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (appellate entry of lesser-included convictions requires that the trier of fact necessarily found facts sufficient to constitute the lesser offense)