State v. Marquina
437 P.3d 628
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim was shot five times at his front door by a masked assailant wearing a blue-and-white streaked mask; Victim survived. Neighbors saw two people in black hoodies fleeing and police recovered a mask.
- Police DNA testing of the mask led to a local drug dealer ("Dealer"). Dealer, his girlfriend ("Girlfriend"), and their driver ("Driver") admitted participating in a planned robbery and each placed Raymond Marquina at the scene.
- Dealer testified he and Marquina approached the victim’s door and Marquina wore the blue-and-white mask and rang the bell; Dealer said Marquina shot Victim. Victim did not identify Marquina from a photo array.
- At trial the three accomplices testified for the State after plea/benefit arrangements; trial lasted three days and the jury convicted Marquina of aggravated robbery with a group enhancement.
- During trial prosecutors reported a juror had nodded off; the court took a recess and later declined to substitute the juror with the alternate after discussion and no objection from defense; Marquina did not move for voir dire of the juror at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Marquina's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marquina was denied Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury because a juror slept | Trial court had duty to voir dire the allegedly sleepy juror and replace with alternate; counsel ineffective for not insisting | No plain or preserved error; trial court acted within discretion and counsel’s inaction not necessarily deficient | No plain error; invited-error doctrine inapplicable; counsel’s performance presumed reasonable and not ineffective |
| Whether trial court plainly erred by failing sua sponte to question or replace sleepy juror | Failure to investigate was obvious legal error and prejudicial to verdict | Handling juror-sleep reports is within trial court discretion; nonbinding authority from other jurisdictions not controlling | No plain error; Utah precedent gives wide discretion and facts didn’t make further inquiry obviously required |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek juror removal | Counsel’s failure to object or request alternate was deficient and prejudicial | Strategic reasons may justify keeping juror; heavy presumption counsel acted reasonably | No ineffective assistance; appellate review defers to potential tactical choices |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to prove Marquina was at scene | No physical/DNA evidence tied Marquina to scene; accomplices unreliable and inconsistent | Accomplice testimony may suffice; jury was entitled to weigh credibility | No plain error; accomplice testimony (even uncorroborated) supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (standard for sufficiency review and appellate deference to jury)
- State v. Mellor, 272 P. 635 (Utah 1928) (trial court discretion in addressing sleeping jurors)
- State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79 (Utah 1983) (trial judge in best position to assess juror incapacity)
- State v. Pace, 527 P.2d 658 (Utah 1974) (affirming denial of mistrial after alleged juror sleep; deference to court observation)
- State v. Smith, 706 P.2d 1052 (Utah 1985) (a conviction may rest on uncorroborated accomplice testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective-assistance test)
- State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (juror selection and retention afford wide tactical latitude to counsel)
- State v. McNeil, 365 P.3d 699 (Utah 2016) (limits of invited-error doctrine)