State v. Mackin, 2016 UT 47

Background

In May 2013 Mackin seized his ex-girlfriend’s purse (claiming it contained evidence she planned to steal a motor home), then drove off while she reached into the passenger window; a physical struggle for the purse occurred while she was partially hanging out of the vehicle. Bystanders intervened and called police. Mackin was arrested.
The State charged Mackin with (as amended) aggravated robbery (based on use of a dangerous weapon), and multiple related counts; at preliminary hearing Ex-girlfriend testified and the court found probable cause.
Relationship with counsel broke down; Mackin represented himself at trial with standby counsel and repeatedly complained that certain defense witnesses were not subpoenaed. He sought continuances to secure witnesses (including Ex-girlfriend); the court denied further continuances.
Ex-girlfriend could not be located at trial; the court found the State’s efforts to procure her reasonable and admitted her preliminary hearing testimony under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1). The jury convicted Mackin of aggravated robbery and other counts.
On appeal Mackin argued (1) insufficient evidence supported aggravated robbery because the car was not shown to be used as a dangerous weapon, (2) the court abused its discretion by denying continuances to obtain defense witnesses, and (3) admitting Ex-girlfriend’s preliminary-hearing testimony violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mackin)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support aggravated robbery (use of a dangerous weapon)	Mackin: vehicle was not used dangerously as a weapon; at most car rolled or was in neutral during the struggle	State: vehicle was used/driven during the robbery/flight in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury, so it qualifies as a dangerous weapon	Court: Affirmed — jury could reasonably find Mackin drove with victim half in window, at speeds sufficient to make the vehicle, as used, capable of causing serious bodily injury, supporting aggravated robbery
Proper interpretation of “dangerous weapon” for aggravated robbery	Mackin: mere possession/use of an item capable of harm is not enough; State must show it was used in a manner capable of causing death/serious injury as part of the robbery	State: object, as used, must be capable of producing serious bodily harm; vehicle here was so used	Court: Statute requires the item be used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury; jury decides factual application; here evidence sufficed
Denial of continuance to allow Mackin to subpoena additional defense witnesses (including Ex-girlfriend)	Mackin: witnesses would corroborate a citizen’s-arrest / honest-belief defense and show Ex-girlfriend’s history of theft — material to his defense	State: defendant failed to show diligence or that proposed testimony was material to a viable defense; citizen’s-arrest defense inapplicable	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion — Mackin failed to show witnesses’ testimony would be material because citizen’s-arrest did not justify taking the purse or restraining Ex-girlfriend as he did
Admission of Ex-girlfriend’s preliminary hearing testimony over confrontation objection	Mackin: trial delay could have allowed live confrontation; prior counsel conflict limited his cross-examination at prelim; admission violated Sixth Amendment	State: witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine at preliminary hearing; admission fits Crawford framework	Court: No violation — witness was unavailable and Mackin had a prior opportunity to cross-examine; no remand under rule 23B warranted for speculative added questioning

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (substantial deference to jury verdicts and standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires unavailability plus prior opportunity for cross-examination for testimonial statements)
State v. Garrido, 314 P.3d 1014 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (preliminary-hearing testimony admissible when defendant had opportunity to cross-examine)
State v. Creviston, 646 P.2d 750 (Utah 1982) (standards for reviewing denial of continuance to secure absent witnesses)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not necessarily perfect or exhaustive cross-examination)
State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (conflicting testimony alone does not require overturning a jury verdict)