State v. Garcia
2016 UT App 59
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Garcia shot four times at his cousin’s vehicle after believing the cousin would seek revenge for an earlier assault; no one was hit.
- Charged with attempted murder (two counts), felony discharge of a firearm (two counts), possession of a firearm by a restricted person, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Garcia asserted self-defense; the State and court agreed there was at least some basis to instruct on imperfect self-defense.
- Trial counsel drafted and submitted Instruction 26 (lesser-included attempted manslaughter), which misstated the law by requiring the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that imperfect self-defense did not apply to convict of attempted manslaughter.
- Jury convicted Garcia of one attempted murder count, both firearm discharge counts, and restricted-person-in-possession; acquitted on the other attempted-murder count.
- On appeal the court vacated the attempted-murder conviction due to counsel’s ineffective assistance for submitting Instruction 26, and affirmed the firearm-possession conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was counsel ineffective for proposing and failing to object to Instruction 26? | Instruction 26 was acceptable; imperfect-self-defense was not supported by evidence. | Instruction 26 misstated law and deprived jury of correct lesser-included option; counsel was ineffective. | Court: Instruction 26 was erroneous; counsel performed deficiently and prejudice is shown; vacate attempted-murder conviction. |
| 2) Was evidence sufficient to convict Garcia as a restricted person in possession of a firearm? | Garcia’s admissions and corroborating evidence support unlawful-user element. | Garcia’s statement about cocaine use was insufficient and uncorroborated. | Court: Evidence (confession + corroboration) was sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| 3) Is the phrase "unlawful user" unconstitutionally vague or limited to contemporaneous intoxication? | Term need not mean intoxicated at the moment; temporal nexus and regularity suffice. | Garcia: "unlawful user" must mean actually using at time of possession; otherwise vague. | Court: Rejected vagueness/strict contemporaneousness argument; upheld existing interpretations. |
| 4) Was counsel ineffective for not moving directed verdict on firearm-possession (based on Mauchley corroboration rule)? | Counsel reasonably forewent futile motion given corroborating statements and other evidence. | Counsel erred by not moving to dismiss because confession alone is insufficient. | Court: Counsel not ineffective here; corroboration made a directed-verdict motion likely futile; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477 (Utah 2003) (confession requires corroboration to sustain conviction)
- State v. Bluff, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2002) (accurate instruction on elements is essential; failure never harmless)
- State v. Green, 6 P.2d 177 (Utah 1931) (conflicting jury instructions reversible error)
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (Instructional error can force impermissible choice between conviction and acquittal)
- State v. Johnson, 330 P.3d 743 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (duplicative/identical instructions for greater and lesser offenses can be reversible error)