496 P.3d 1162
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Victim confronted Hosman for allegedly beating a Chihuahua; after an initial confrontation Hosman left but later made two U-turns and returned to the intersection where he struck the victim in a crosswalk with his car, then fled the scene.
- The impact launched the victim ~54 feet into a pole; Hosman did not stop, later altered and concealed his car, and was apprehended three days later.
- Hosman was charged with first‑degree murder (dangerous weapon). Before trial, parties stipulated the State’s witnesses would not opine on Hosman’s criminal intent.
- At trial an accident reconstructionist and a major‑case investigator testified that investigators initially treated the incident as a hit‑and‑run but later investigated it as potentially intentional; defense moved for mistrial after the investigator’s testimony.
- Defense also moved for directed verdict arguing insufficient evidence of murder intent; during closing the prosecutor argued several inferences (no skid marks = didn’t brake; vehicle damage indicates speed; wide turn to maintain speed). Jury convicted; Hosman appealed on three grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial was required because State witnesses opined on intent | State: witness statements merely described how the investigation evolved and did not give a legal opinion on Hosman’s mens rea | Hosman: expert and case agent impermissibly expressed opinions on whether he acted intentionally, breaching the stipulation and rules 701/702/704 | Court: No mistrial — testimony explained investigative facts and did not offer legal conclusions about mens rea; denial of mistrial affirmed |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support murder (directed verdict) | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (U‑turns, cutting across lanes, speed, no braking, flight and concealment) support reasonable inference of intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury | Hosman: evidence inconsistent about victim’s exact position and lane, insufficient to prove a nefarious or intentional mental state — at most manslaughter | Court: Denial of directed verdict correct — evidence allowed reasonable inference of intent (or intent to cause serious bodily harm) and supported first‑degree murder conviction |
| Whether prosecutor committed plain‑error misconduct in closing by drawing inferences not supported by evidence | State: prosecutor’s inferences (no skid marks→didn’t brake; damage→speed; wide turn→maintained speed) were reasonable deductions from expert and lay testimony and physical evidence | Hosman: prosecutor offered unsworn expert opinions and speculation not in evidence, warranting reversal | Court: No plain error — prosecutor’s statements were reasonable inferences from the evidence and not so egregious or obviously wrong that the trial court had to intervene sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Silva, 456 P.3d 718 (Utah 2019) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for mistrial denials and review of impact of improper testimony)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (standards on inferring intent from flight and other circumstantial evidence; and mistrial analysis)
- State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (expert testimony that a death was a homicide does not necessarily opine on the defendant’s mens rea)
- State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims; limits on sua sponte intervention)
- State v. Rothlisberger, 147 P.3d 1176 (Utah 2006) (distinction between lay versus expert opinion testimony under Rules 701–702)