State v. Paule
2021 UT App 120
| Utah Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Paule shot and killed a friend who had come to his apartment; Paule claimed self‑defense. A shotgun was later recovered in the grass below Paule’s balcony with Paule’s prints on it. Paule’s phone was lost when he fled and he traveled to California before turning himself in and admitting to California officers he was “here for murder.”
- The State charged Paule with murder (1st‑degree), obstruction of justice (allegedly for throwing the shotgun off the balcony), reckless endangerment, and assault. Trial lasted nine days.
- The jury acquitted Paule of murder, reckless endangerment, and assault, but convicted him of obstruction of justice (a second‑degree felony). Paule moved to arrest judgment arguing the obstruction verdict was legally inconsistent with the acquittals.
- The trial court denied the motion. At sentencing the State argued (and the court later struck) that jurors had mentioned other acts (disposing of the phone, fleeing to California) as possible bases for obstruction.
- On appeal Paule argued (1) the obstruction verdict was legally impossible/inconsistent with his acquittals and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a unanimity instruction or special verdict identifying the specific act forming the basis for the obstruction conviction. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Paule) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the obstruction conviction is legally inconsistent with jury acquittals on underlying charges | Obstruction can be proved independently; State relied on evidence (gun found below balcony with Paule’s prints) showing Paule concealed/removed the shotgun to hinder an investigation | The acquittals show no underlying crime existed to obstruct, so an obstruction conviction is legally impossible and must be vacated | Affirmed. Obstruction statute (post‑2001) criminalizes interference with an investigation of conduct that “would be punishable as a crime”; a conviction for obstruction can stand even if underlying charges are later not proven. Terry not controlling. |
| Whether evidence supports felony (2nd‑degree) rather than misdemeanor obstruction | The investigation at issue concerned a possible first‑degree murder (police charged murder days after the shooting; Paule admitted to murder) so felony level is supported | It’s unclear which underlying offense jurors had in mind so evidence is insufficient to support a felony conviction | Affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported that the investigation concerned first‑degree murder; felony level was proper. |
| Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request a specific unanimity instruction/special verdict | State argued it consistently limited the obstruction theory to the shotgun being thrown off the balcony, so no unanimity problem | Paule argued the jury could have split among three factual bases (gun, phone disposal, flight) absent a specific unanimity instruction, creating a unanimity error and counsel deficiency | Affirmed. No deficient performance shown because State repeatedly identified the single act (throwing the shotgun) as the basis for obstruction, so counsel reasonably declined to request additional instruction and Paule was not prejudiced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleasant Grove City v. Terry, 478 P.3d 1026 (Utah 2020) (defines and limits "legally impossible" verdict doctrine)
- State v. Hamilton, 457 P.3d 447 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (obstruction statute does not require conviction of underlying crime)
- State v. Alires, 455 P.3d 636 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (jury must agree on same underlying act when multiple acts could support identical counts)
- State v. Hummel, 393 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (unanimity requirement and need for juror concurrence on the same criminal act)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)