300 P.3d 786
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Ortiz was convicted in the Second District, Ogden, of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony.
- Ortiz appealed arguing the trial court erred in denying permission to cover facial tattoos at trial.
- The tattoos were not admitted as evidence and were not referred to as evidence during trial.
- The tattoos’ visibility was part of Ortiz’s general appearance and not subject to rules 401, 402, 403.
- The court held the tattoo visibility did not prejudice Ortiz and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial to cover tattoos prejudiced Ortiz | Ortiz | Ortiz | No prejudice; not evidence-based |
| Whether tattoos are subject to evidentiary rules when only visible | Ortiz | Ortiz | Tattoo visibility not governed by rules 401-403 |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (tattoos not equated with prison garb for prejudice analysis)