State v. Garcia
2017 UT 53
| Utah | 2017Background
- Garcia (defendant) shot four times at a passing car intending to kill his cousin Keith; Keith’s step-daughter Kanesha was also in the vehicle; Garcia was charged with attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a restricted person (an "unlawful user").
- At trial the defense asserted imperfect self-defense; the district court (with the State’s concession) allowed an imperfect self-defense instruction and also the lesser-included offense of attempted manslaughter, but the manslaughter instruction misstated how imperfect self-defense related to the lesser offense.
- Trial counsel did not object to the defective instruction; the jury convicted Garcia of attempted murder and of possession of a firearm by a restricted person; acquitted on the second attempted-murder count.
- On appeal the Utah Court of Appeals found counsel’s submission of the defective instruction prejudicial (vacating the attempted murder conviction) but affirmed the firearm-possession conviction, rejecting a vagueness/insufficiency challenge to "unlawful user."
- Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari: it reversed the court of appeals on the ineffective-assistance/prejudice analysis for the jury instruction (finding no Strickland prejudice) and affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on the "unlawful user" firearm charge (finding sufficient evidence under a narrowed, constitutional reading).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to an erroneous lesser-offense jury instruction prejudiced defendant under Strickland | State: Court of Appeals erred; Strickland requires an assessment of whether there was a reasonable probability of a different result, not a presumption of prejudice | Garcia: Erroneous instruction deprived jury of correct law and counsel’s failure was prejudicial | Court: Reversed court of appeals — no Strickland prejudice; evidence (including Garcia’s admissions) overwhelmingly supported attempted murder verdict |
| Whether defense preserved constitutional vagueness challenge to "unlawful user" or may invoke constitutional-avoidance on appeal | State: Issue was not argued below as a constitutional vagueness claim | Garcia: Statute is vague as applied; should be narrowly construed to require contemporaneous use | Court: Preservation satisfied as to statutory interpretation; parties had disputed meaning below so canons (including constitutional avoidance) are available on appeal |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to deny directed verdict on possession by an "unlawful user" (temporal nexus/regularity required) | State: Garcia’s admissions (present-tense use, "do a lot of cocaine sometimes," paranoia when off drugs) suffice to show regular and proximate use | Garcia: No evidence of contemporaneous or regular use tied to the possession event; statute is vague otherwise | Court: Affirmed denial of directed verdict — under a constitutionally acceptable reading requiring regularity and temporal proximity, the evidence was sufficient; any failure to narrowly instruct was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test requiring proof of prejudice)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (jury-instruction omissions of elements are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (structural-error context and limits on presumed prejudice when raised as ineffective assistance)
- State v. Bluff, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah case on accuracy of element instructions; discussed and distinguished)
- United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832 (federal interpretation requiring regularity of drug use plus temporal nexus to avoid vagueness for "unlawful user")