State v. Ochoa
2014 UT App 296
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Juan Ochoa, an inmate at Utah State Prison, attacked his cellmate with a homemade shank; the cellmate suffered multiple, life‑threatening stab wounds.
- Ochoa was prosecuted and convicted of attempted aggravated murder (1st degree) and possession of items prohibited in a correctional facility (2nd degree).
- At trial, certain jury instructions stated as facts that the Utah State Prison is a correctional facility and that Ochoa was a prisoner there. Defense counsel did not object.
- The jury instructions for the possession charge omitted an explicit mens rea definition. Defense counsel did not object; the State conceded deficient performance on that point.
- The attempt instruction used superseded statutory language for attempt, and the attempted aggravated murder instruction said Ochoa had "intentionally attempted to cause the death," which Ochoa argued could permit conviction without intent to kill.
- Ochoa appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to object to the jury instructions; the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to instructions that treated "Utah State Prison" and "prisoner" status as established facts | State argued any instructional omission was harmless because evidence conclusively established prison/cellmate status | Ochoa argued removing the element from the jury was structural error and counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Court: Not structural; even assuming deficient performance, omission harmless because no rational basis to dispute prisoner/correctional facility status; no prejudice shown |
| Whether omission of mens rea in possession‑in‑facility instruction prejudiced Ochoa | State conceded counsel erred but argued omission was harmless given the evidence | Ochoa argued jury could have convicted without finding intent/knowledge/recklessness | Court: Harmless — default mens rea applies and record contained no rational basis to find lack of intent/knowledge/recklessness; strong evidence of intentional possession/use |
| Whether attempt instruction used outdated mens rea language for attempt | State argued overall instructions and trial argument conveyed required intent | Ochoa argued wording allowed conviction for intentionally stabbing without intent to kill | Court: No prejudice — jury was told in instructions and in opening/closing that intent to kill was required; record contained strong evidence of intent to kill |
| Whether cumulative instructional errors satisfy Strickland prejudice standard | State argued errors were nonprejudicial; defense argued cumulative effect violated right to fair trial | Court: Prejudice not shown; rejected ineffective assistance claims and affirmed convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (aggravating facts that increase penalty are elements for jury to find)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (failure to submit an element to a jury is not structural error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted jury element review asks whether record could rationally lead to contrary finding)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (omission of an element is subject to harmless‑error analysis)