State v. Martinez
2015 UT App 193
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Martinez and his girlfriend A.V. argued after a party; Martinez repeatedly struck A.V., including punching her jaw, causing fractures requiring surgery and long-term problems. A.V. initially gave an account that several girls assaulted her, later signed a statement prepared by Martinez, but subsequently reported Martinez as the assailant and his mother testified Martinez twice admitted hitting A.V.
- Martinez was charged with aggravated assault (second-degree) and witness tampering (third-degree). The State did not intend to introduce prior-bad-acts history, and the trial court said such history might be admissible to explain the victim’s behavior under Rule 404(b).
- During cross-examination of a police officer, Martinez’s counsel inadvertently elicited two brief, vague references that there was a “history of violence” between Martinez and A.V.; counsel did not object at the time but later moved for a mistrial after the officer and jury were excused.
- The trial court denied the mistrial motion, finding the references brief, non-specific, and not sufficiently prejudicial; the jury convicted Martinez on both counts.
- On appeal Martinez argued (1) the prior-bad-acts references were inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and warranted a mistrial, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support aggravated assault because the force was not likely to produce serious bodily injury, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request reduction to simple assault. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martinez) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inadvertent references to a “history of violence” required a mistrial under Rule 404(b) | The mentions were inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence that so prejudiced the jury a mistrial was required | The references were brief, vague, non-specific, not used in closing, and the charged-incident evidence dominated the trial | Denied mistrial—references were brief/vague and did not substantially influence verdict; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support aggravated-assault conviction (force likely to produce serious bodily injury) | The only evidence of force was the victim’s injuries; defendant argues the conduct did not show force likely to produce serious bodily injury | The jury may infer from the nature of blows and resulting serious injury (broken jaw requiring surgery) that force was likely to produce serious bodily injury | Not preserved for appeal; even on the merits, jury could reasonably infer aggravated-force element from facts; conviction stands |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not asking trial court to reduce conviction to simple assault | Counsel should have moved to modify conviction because force was not likely to cause serious bodily injury | A motion to reduce would have been futile given evidence; failing to make futile motions is not deficient performance under Strickland | No ineffective assistance—failure to make a futile motion not deficient; prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calliham, 55 P.3d 573 (Utah 2002) (review of mistrial denial is for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Milligan, 287 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (defendant must show challenged testimony substantially influenced the verdict)
- State v. Dalton, 331 P.3d 1110 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial judge is best positioned to assess courtroom events' impact)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Leleae, 993 P.2d 232 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (extent/type of injuries relevant to whether conduct caused serious bodily injury)