State v. Parkinson
427 P.3d 246
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Michael Parkinson was traffic-stopped by two plain-clothes Murray City detectives in unmarked vehicles; a plain‑clothes sergeant later joined, each wearing a badge on a lanyard.
- Officers informed Parkinson they intended to search his car pursuant to his parole agreement; a dispute arose and officers attempted to get him out of the vehicle.
- During the encounter Parkinson put the car into drive, accelerated, and dragged two officers; he then drove off, abandoned the car, and did not report the incident for four days.
- Parkinson was arrested four days later and charged with two counts of assault on a peace officer (second‑degree felony) and one count of failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop (third‑degree felony).
- At trial defense counsel submitted jury instructions that omitted required mens rea elements (knowledge that victim is a peace officer; knowingly received a signal and intent to flee or elude). The State and trial court did not correct the instructions; the jury convicted.
- On appeal Parkinson argued ineffective assistance of counsel for proposing the deficient instructions; the court considered prejudice under Strickland and related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s submission of jury instructions omitting required mens rea elements constituted ineffective assistance | State: convictions should stand because defendant cannot show prejudice from the instructional errors | Parkinson: counsel’s proposed instructions omitted essential mental‑state elements; that error requires reversal or shows ineffective assistance | Court: Affirmed — Parkinson failed to show prejudice under Strickland; no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether an erroneous instruction on elements is automatically reversible when caused by counsel | State: such errors in the ineffective‑assistance context require proof of prejudice | Parkinson: relied on precedent suggesting certain instruction errors are reversible per se | Court: Holds Garcia and federal precedent require defendant to show prejudice; no automatic reversal in ineffective‑assistance claims |
| Whether evidence supported that Parkinson knew officers were police officers | State: totality of evidence (lights, his producing documents, sergeant’s statements, parole references, post‑flight conduct) established knowledge | Parkinson: plain clothes, disputed badge visibility, and extended stop support reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence makes it exceedingly unlikely a properly instructed jury would have doubted his knowledge |
| Whether failure to show prejudice defeats the ineffective‑assistance claim even if counsel’s performance was deficient | State: yes — prejudice is required; performance concession is unnecessary | Parkinson: sought reversal based on instruction error itself | Court: Prejudice not shown, so claim fails; court need not decide deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Liti, 355 P.3d 1078 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (discussing prejudice requirement for ineffective‑assistance challenges to jury instructions)
- State v. Bird, 345 P.3d 1141 (Utah 2015) (articulating mens rea elements for failure to stop statute)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (prejudice must be substantial, not merely conceivable)
- State v. Jones, 823 P.2d 1059 (Utah 1991) (erroneous element instruction can be clear error in non‑ineffective‑assistance context)
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (doctrine barring review of invited error)