State v. Lebeau, 2012 UT App 235

Defendant Andrew Lebeau was convicted by a jury of aggravated kidnapping (life without parole), aggravated assault (up to five years), failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop (up to five years), and cruelty to an animal (class B misdemeanor).
Girlfriend and Lebeau had lived together about 18 months; tensions rose in late 2008 leading to separation of rooms and mistrust.
In February 2009, Girlfriend moved out of their shared room; Lebeau suspected Girlfriend was seeing a friend (“Friend”) for drugs and tampered with her car.
Girlfriend spent the evening with Friend; Lebeau fought with her, assaulted her, and forced her into a garage with locked doors.
Lebeau drove toward Friend’s neighborhood; after police initiated a traffic stop, he accelerated, rammed Friend’s truck, causing severe injuries to Girlfriend and damage to the dog and vehicle.
Defendant argued prosecutorial misconduct and challenged the life-without-parole sentence; the trial court sentenced Lebeau to life without parole on aggravated kidnapping.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Lebeau alleges the prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses and misstated the burden and intent element.	Lebeau contends the prosecutor’s statements misled the jury and distorted the law.	No reversible error; statements were within permissible advocacy and did not prejudice outcome.
Sentence for aggravated kidnapping	Lebeau argues the court abused discretion by not properly considering mitigating factors and parole rehabilitation.	Lebeau asserts the life-without-parole sentence precludes Board of Pardons’ parole review and rehabilitation consideration.	No abuse; statutory presumptive life without parole is authorized and does not violate rehabilitative principles.

State v. Tilt, 101 P.3d 838 (Utah App. 2004) (prosecutorial misconduct reviewed for abuse of discretion in context of closing argument; plain error standard discussed)
State v. Bakalov, 979 P.2d 799 (Utah 1999) (prosecutorial remarks may draw inferences from evidence; not misconduct when within proper bounds)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error requires obvious-error and prejudice showing)
State v. Todd, 173 P.3d 170 (Utah App. 2007) (closing argument limits; proper inference from evidence allowed)
State v. Jenson, 280 P. 1046 (Utah 1929) (intent inferred from acts and circumstances)
State v. Colwell, 994 P.2d 177 (Utah 2000) (intent may be inferred; jury instructed on elements)
Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (U.S. 2010) (rehabilitation claims; life-without-parole implications; not controlling here but relevant to parole philosophy)
State v. Smith, 909 P.2d 236 (Utah 1995) (Board of Pardons wide latitude in determining maximum sentence; rehabilitation role discussed)
State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297 (Utah 1993) (youth and rehabilitative needs; Board's role on parole noted)
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (legislative policy and parole flexibility in punishment schemes)