State v. Holm
2020 UT App 96
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- In Sept. 2012 Holm drove a minivan at very high speeds (witnesses said 70+ mph), swerving between lanes with headlights off, ran a red light, and collided with another vehicle; a front-seat passenger died from blunt-force chest trauma.
- Holm was charged with negligent homicide (requiring criminal negligence).
- At the first trial the parties and court entered ten stipulations about evidentiary/factual matters (e.g., no drugs in Holm’s system; chain of custody; authenticity of a pre-crash photo) and the court admitted a post-crash photograph of the victim receiving care in the wrecked vehicle.
- Holm was convicted, the conviction was reversed on unrelated grounds, and the case was remanded for retrial with new counsel and a different judge.
- On remand the court enforced the prior stipulations, again admitted the victim photograph, denied Holm’s requested simple-negligence instruction, denied a directed verdict, and a jury again convicted Holm.
- Holm appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) binding new counsel to prior stipulations, (2) admitting a prejudicial photograph, (3) refusing a simple-negligence instruction, and (4) denying a directed verdict for insufficient evidence of criminal negligence. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Holm's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by enforcing prior trial stipulations on retrial | Stipulations were judicially accepted, enforceable, and Holm showed no prejudice from enforcement | Stipulations entered by prior counsel should not bind new counsel after reversal; they foreclosed alternative trial strategies | No abuse of discretion; Holm failed to show prejudice or how strategy would differ |
| Whether admission of the post-crash photograph violated rule 403 | Photo was relevant to cause-of-death and corroborated EMT testimony; minimal risk of unfair prejudice | Photo was gruesome and unfairly prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; single non-graphic photo’s probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Whether the court erred by denying a jury instruction defining simple (ordinary) negligence | Jury was adequately instructed on criminal vs. ordinary negligence; ordinary negligence is not an element of negligent homicide | Needed a separate simple-negligence definition to present defense theory that conduct was only ordinary negligence | No error; instructions as a whole properly distinguished ordinary and criminal negligence and covered defense theory |
| Whether the court erred in denying directed verdict (sufficiency of evidence of criminal negligence) | Evidence (excessive speed, headlights off at night, weaving, running red light, no attempt to avoid collision) supported criminal negligence | At worst mere ordinary negligence or momentary inattention insufficient for criminal negligence | Denial proper; evidence viewed favorably to the State was sufficient to let a reasonable jury find criminal negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Met v. State, 388 P.3d 447 (Utah 2016) (rule 403 balancing applies to all photographs; rejects gruesome-photograph test)
- Miller v. Department of Transp., 285 P.3d 1208 (Utah 2012) (review of trial court refusal to give jury instruction is for abuse of discretion; instructions considered as a whole)
- State v. Larsen, 999 P.2d 1252 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (distinguishing ordinary inattention from criminal negligence in negligent-homicide context)
- State v. Richardson, 308 P.3d 526 (Utah 2013) (low bar for relevance of evidence)
- State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1989) (illustrative of exclusion where photographs are highly gruesome and inflammatory)
- McLaughlin v. Schenk, 299 P.3d 1139 (Utah 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine permits courts to decline to revisit decided issues)