State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10

Background

Jose Angel Gonzalez (Dog Town member) stabbed George Davila (rival-gang affiliate) inside a Kohl’s restroom; Davila died from multiple stab wounds. Gonzalez admitted the stabbing but claimed self‑defense.
Surveillance, eyewitness testimony, text/phone records, and gang paraphernalia tied Gonzalez to Dog Town and suggested premeditation and gang involvement.
Charges: murder (first degree) with a criminal‑street‑gang enhancement, obstruction of justice, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person.
At trial Gonzalez stipulated to both parties’ gang memberships; the State nevertheless introduced gang‑related evidence and expert testimony during the guilt phase.
Jury convicted Gonzalez of murder, obstruction, and weapon possession; jury later found the gang enhancement true, adding five years. Gonzalez appealed directed‑verdict denial, admission of gang evidence, and the trial court’s refusal to hear a post‑trial constitutional challenge to the gang‑enhancement statute as untimely.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for murder (self‑defense)	Gonzalez: evidence insufficient; he acted in self‑defense	State: evidence showed Gonzalez was aggressor, planned fight, and had motive; preserves sufficiency challenge	Affirmed — reasonable jury could find Gonzalez was aggressor; sufficient evidence to deny directed verdict
Sufficiency for obstruction charge	Gonzalez: if self‑defense, no underlying crime, so no obstruction	State: murder conviction supported obstruction; Gonzalez destroyed potential evidence (shirt) with intent to hinder	Affirmed — because murder upheld, evidence supported obstruction conviction
Admission of gang‑related evidence at guilt phase	Gonzalez: stipulation and bifurcation made gang evidence cumulative, prejudicial, and irrelevant	State: gang evidence probative of motive, intent, lack of self‑defense, and context; experts explained symbols, culture, and "battle readiness"	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion under Rules 403/404; probative value outweighed prejudice
Timeliness of constitutional challenge to gang‑enhancement statute	Gonzalez: statute is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad; motion raised post‑trial	State: motion untimely; trial court set deadlines; defendant gave no good cause	Affirmed — trial court properly exercised docket control and denied the late motion as untimely

Key Cases Cited

Ferguson v. Williams & Hunt, Inc., 221 P.3d 205 (Utah 2009) (standard of review for directed verdict)
State v. Kell, 61 P.3d 1019 (Utah 2002) (Rule 403 abuse‑of‑discretion review)
State v. Bergeson, 241 P.3d 777 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (trial court docket management and timeliness)
State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (standard for upholding denial of directed verdict)
State v. Starks, 627 P.2d 88 (Utah 1981) (aggressor doctrine and conduct at scene)
State v. Schoenfeld, 545 P.2d 193 (Utah 1976) (definition of aggressor)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (presumption in favor of admissibility)
State v. Maurer, 770 P.2d 981 (Utah 1989) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
State v. Houskeeper, 62 P.3d 444 (Utah 2002) (harmlessness standard for evidentiary error)
State v. High, 282 P.3d 1046 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (admission of gang evidence contexts)
State v. Cristobal, 282 P.3d 1064 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (gang territory evidence probative of motive)
United States v. Hodges, 315 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2003) (mere gang affiliation not Rule 404(b) bad‑acts evidence)
United States v. Santiago, 643 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2011) (gang evidence can be highly probative despite prejudice)
United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1996) (contextual admission of gang evidence)
State v. Belgard, 811 P.2d 211 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (docket management interests)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule)
State v. Meza, 263 P.3d 424 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (requirement for specific objections)
State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (contextual clarity needed to preserve objections)