State v. Met, 388 P.3d 447

Background

Seven-year-old Hser Ner Moo was reported missing March 31, 2008 and found dead in the basement shower of an apartment where defendant Esar Met lived; injuries indicated blunt-force trauma and sexual assault.
FBI agents entered and searched the apartment without a warrant after roommates consented to a search of common areas; bloodstains and the victim’s body were discovered in the basement bathroom.
Met was arrested, interrogated with an untrained translator, and gave statements later found inadmissible for the State’s case-in-chief but the district court allowed the transcript for impeachment if Met testified.
Physical evidence tied Met to the scene: Victim’s blood and DNA on stains in the apartment and on Met’s jacket; DNA under Victim’s fingernails did not exclude Met; Met had scratches consistent with defensive wounds.
Met was convicted of aggravated murder and child kidnapping; jury found multiple aggravators. District court sentenced Met to concurrent life-without-parole terms; Met appealed raising constitutional, evidentiary, Fourth Amendment, merger, ineffective assistance, and sentencing-error claims.

Issues

Issue	Met's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of Utah Code § 76-3-207.7 (noncapital aggravated murder sentencing)	Statute grants unfettered discretion, violates due process, equal protection, Eighth Amendment, and jury-trial rights	Statute is consistent with precedent, must be read with statutory commands preventing arbitrary sentences; rational basis for dual-track scheme	§ 76-3-207.7 is constitutional; dual-track sentencing permissible under precedent
Admissibility of interrogation transcript for impeachment (Miranda/voluntariness)	Ruling admitting transcript for impeachment discouraged Met from testifying and was erroneous because translation problems rendered statements untrustworthy	Transcript voluntary for Harris impeachment purposes; Met failed to create a record showing prejudice from ruling	Court declines to reach merits because Met did not testify or proffer testimony; adopting rule: if defendant declines to testify after such a ruling, must create a district-court record (proffer/affidavit) to permit appellate review
Fourth Amendment warrantless search (consent and exigency)	Roommates lacked authority to consent to basement search; no exigent circumstances existed before entering bathroom	Roommates had common authority over basement common area; after discovering blood in basement main room, exigent circumstances justified bathroom entry	Search reasonable: consent sufficed for basement main room; exigent circumstances justified search of basement bathroom
Admission of two photos (shower body, close-up genitalia)	Photographs were gruesome and unduly prejudicial; should be excluded under prior "gruesome-photo" precedents	Photos were relevant and highly probative of sexual assault, location/position of body, and struggle; Rule 403 balancing supports admission	Admission affirmed; court abandons prior separate "gruesome-photograph" threshold and directs strict Rule 403 balancing for all such evidence
Merger of kidnapping and aggravated murder convictions	Kidnapping was incidental to murder and must merge to avoid double punishment	Kidnapping involved separate detention/relocation and independent significance from murder	Convictions do not merge under Finlayson/Lee test; kidnapping had independent significance and reduced detection risk
Ineffective assistance for withdrawing mistrial motion over unpreserved upstairs blood spot	Counsel’s withdrawal was deficient and prejudiced Met because untested evidence could have been exculpatory	Even if deficient, outcome not prejudiced given strong inculpatory evidence	No prejudice shown under Strickland; conviction stands
Sentencing misstatement (court treated life-without-parole as presumptive under § 76-3-207.7)	Court relied on incorrect presumption when imposing life-without-parole	Sentence may still be valid but remand needed to clarify effect of misapprehension	Remand limited to allow sentencing judge to determine whether misstatement affected the aggravated-murder sentence; if so, vacate and resentence

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings requirement)
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1971) (statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment if voluntary and reliable)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (defendant ordinarily must testify to preserve certain impeachment-evidence claims)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent‑circumstances emergency-assistance exception to warrant requirement)
Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third‑party common authority to consent to search)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (double jeopardy/test for same offense)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (qualitative difference between death and other punishments)
State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (Utah precedent on § 76-3-207.7 and sentencing discretion)
State v. Perea, 322 P.3d 624 (Utah 2013) (aggravated murder sentencing precedent)
State v. Lee, 128 P.3d 1179 (Utah 2006) (common-law merger guidance)
State v. Finlayson, 994 P.2d 1243 (Utah 2000) (merger test for kidnapping incidental to another offense)
State v. Bluff, 52 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2002) (gruesome-photo factors—abandoned here as threshold test)
State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1988) (earlier gruesome-photograph framework)
State v. Gulbransen, 106 P.3d 734 (Utah 2005) (gruesome-photo test refinement)