State v. Navarro
2019 UT App 2
| Utah Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Two rival gang groups encountered one another; a shootout ensued in an alley and Victim was killed instantly by a neck wound. Defendant Ernesto Navarro was in the shooting group and was later convicted of murder, obstruction, and felony discharge of a firearm.
- Witnesses placed Defendant in the sedan and in the alley; police recovered spent casings matching Defendant’s .40 and another defendant’s 9mm; Defendant attempted to hide guns and remove residue after returning to his apartment.
- Nephew (Victim’s passenger) testified that the alleymen (Defendant’s group) fired first; Nephew had given inconsistent statements to police and admitted to fabricating some suspect identifications earlier in the investigation.
- A detective testified at trial about Nephew’s prior consistent statements to police and confirmed that a niece’s account never deviated from saying the alleymen fired first.
- Jury was instructed on imperfect self-defense, but one instruction (Instruction 53) incorrectly stated the burden as requiring the defendant to prove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, while two other instructions correctly placed the burden on the State.
- Defendant raised ineffective-assistance claims on appeal: counsel failed to object to the detective’s testimony as hearsay and failed to object to the erroneous manslaughter/imperfect-self-defense jury instruction; the court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Navarro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Counsel ineffective for failing to object to detective testimony about witness’s prior consistent statements | Detective’s testimony was admissible as rehabilitative under rule 801(d)(1)(B); even if error, harmless given other evidence | Counsel should have objected to hearsay and sought limiting instruction; testimony improperly bolstered Nephew’s credibility on who shot first | No ineffective assistance — even assuming deficient performance, no prejudice given totality of evidence and credibility issues with Nephew |
| 2. Counsel ineffective for failing to object to erroneous jury instruction on imperfect self-defense burden | The State conceded the instruction was erroneous but argued Defendant was not entitled to imperfect self-defense, so no prejudice | Instruction 53 improperly shifted burden to Defendant to prove imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt | No ineffective assistance — other instructions correctly stated burden and overwhelming evidence showed Defendant was aggressor, so no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| 3. Cumulative error (raised in reply) | Errors together prevented consideration of imperfect self-defense | Hearsay plus faulty instruction deprived Navarro of fair trial | Waived — not raised in opening brief, so appellate court declined to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bujan, 190 P.3d 1255 (Utah 2008) (limits admissibility of prior consistent statements to rebut recent fabrication and discusses need for limiting instruction)
- State v. Lee, 318 P.3d 1164 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (once defendant produces some evidence of imperfect self-defense, prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Garcia, 424 P.3d 171 (Utah 2017) (appellate review of prejudice under Strickland requires considering totality of evidence)
- State v. Hards, 345 P.3d 769 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (both deficient performance and prejudice are requisite elements of ineffective-assistance claims)