State v. Nay
2017 UT App 3
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Hanson’s house and found Hanson, her brother (Brother), and Nay; officers discovered multiple bags/jars of marijuana, growing equipment, a live plant, drying plants, and two guns in Hanson’s bedroom.
- Hanson was interviewed at the jail (unrecorded); Detective testified she confessed that she and Nay had done most of the growing and that the trio prepared marijuana for resale; Hanson later denied remembering the interview at trial.
- The State charged Hanson, Nay, and Brother; Brother pled guilty. The State moved to join Nay’s and Hanson’s cases for a joint trial; the trial court granted joinder over Nay’s and Hanson’s objections.
- At the joint trial, Brother and Nay testified that Brother alone grew and sold the marijuana; Hanson testified she did not remember the interview and blamed Brother for the cultivation; the jury convicted both Nay and Hanson on drug counts and convicted Hanson on an additional firearm count.
- On appeal Nay and Hanson argued joinder was prejudicial because (a) their defenses were antagonistic and (b) Hanson’s jailhouse confession would have been inadmissible hearsay or violative of the Confrontation Clause in Nay’s separate trial. The court reviewed joinder for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting joinder | State: joinder appropriate because charges arose from same criminal episode | Nay/Hanson: joinder prejudiced defendants due to antagonistic defenses and inadmissible hearsay (Hanson’s confession) | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendants failed to preserve or prove prejudice |
| Admissibility of Hanson’s jailhouse confession against Nay at a separate trial (hearsay/Rule 801) | State: confession admissible where declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination | Nay: confession would be inadmissible hearsay at his individual trial because Hanson allegedly would be unavailable due to lack of memory | Rejected — claim not preserved; even if raised, lapse of memory does not render witness unavailable for Rule 801(d)(1)(A) impeachment exception |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of Hanson’s confession in Nay’s trial | State: no Confrontation problem because Hanson testified at joint trial and issue not preserved | Nay: Crawford/Bruton issues because confession testimonial and declarant allegedly unavailable for cross-examination at his trial | Rejected — waived for failure to preserve; court noted mere lack of memory does not make witness unavailable under Confrontation Clause |
| Antagonistic or mutually exclusive defenses warranting severance | State: no undue prejudice shown; joint defense testimony occurred | Defendants: their defenses were irreconcilable such that joinder would be fundamentally unfair | Rejected — defendants did not adequately present specific, preserved arguments or show likely prejudice at separate trials |
Key Cases Cited
- Dozah v. State, 368 P.3d 863 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (standard for viewing evidence on appeal from jury verdict)
- Jok v. State, 348 P.3d 385 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (severance/joinder reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Collins v. State, 612 P.2d 775 (Utah 1980) (joinder reversal only if fair trial impaired)
- Velarde v. State, 734 P.2d 440 (Utah 1986) (prejudice when evidence at joint trial would differ from separate trials)
- Fensterer v. Delaware, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (lapse of memory does not make witness unavailable for Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require unavailability and prior cross-examination)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (pretrial confession of one codefendant inadmissible against the other at joint trial if confessing defendant does not testify)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (confrontation rights and admission of a co-defendant’s confession in joint trials)
- Martinez v. State, 357 P.3d 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (preservation rule for appellate review)
- Pullman v. State, 306 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (refusal to consider unpreserved constitutional issues)