State v. Hansen, 460 P.3d 560

Officer responded to dispatch of a brandished firearm and saw a red Mustang; a woman quickly entered the passenger side and Hansen was driving.
After the vehicle stopped, Officer prevented Hansen from exiting, observed Hansen bending/ reaching toward under the driver’s seat, and awaited backup.
Backup Officer detained Hansen, patted him down, and Hansen volunteered that a gun was under the driver’s seat.
Officer saw an unzipped sunglass case under the seat exposing what he believed was methamphetamine and baggies; sliding the case revealed a handgun.
Hansen made statements to officers admitting he used meth, that he placed the gun and sunglass case under the seat when he panicked, and that he was the only person who touched/possessed the gun.
At trial Hansen denied current meth use; on cross-examination he admitted prior guilty pleas/convictions for meth possession. He moved for mistrial twice; the court denied relief. Jury convicted Hansen of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm by a restricted person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the court plainly erred by allowing evidence of Hansen’s prior meth-possession convictions (impeachment)	State: Cross-examination was proper impeachment to contradict Hansen’s testimony that he did not currently use meth and did not know about drugs in the car.	Hansen: Admission of prior convictions violated Utah R. Evid. 608, 609, and 403 and prejudiced the jury; court should have intervened.	No plain error. The questions were impeachment/rebuttal of Hansen’s claim of no current drug use; Rule 608 inapplicable to convictions, and probative value of impeachment outweighed prejudice.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on possession (controlled substance, paraphernalia, firearm by restricted person)	State: Sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence — observed reaching under seat, admissions that he placed items under seat and used meth, discovery of meth, baggies, and a gun under driver’s seat, and statement that he alone possessed the gun.	Hansen: Evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed the meth, paraphernalia, or firearm.	No plain error. Combined observational evidence and Hansen’s admissions provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict.

State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (plain-error standard and burdens on appellant)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (sufficiency-of-evidence plain-error standard)
State v. Robinson, 427 P.3d 474 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (definition/requirements for plain error review)
State v. Corona, 436 P.3d 174 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (scope of permissible cross-examination/rebuttal impeachment)
State v. Alzaga, 352 P.3d 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (rule 609 governs convictions used to attack credibility)
Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 435 P.3d 255 (Utah 2019) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (credibility considerations in rule 403 balancing)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requirement to advise suspects of Miranda rights)