State v. Plexico, 376 P.3d 1080

Background

After an August 2013 altercation, police cited Plexico for two misdemeanor assaults; Friend initially reported Plexico hit Boyfriend, then later said Plexico asked her to change that statement.
Plexico was arrested for witness tampering (attempting to induce another to testify or inform falsely) and the assault and tampering charges were severed.
Plexico was acquitted of the assault charges in March 2014; she sought to have that acquittal admitted in the later tampering trial (or, alternatively, a cautionary instruction if evidence of the assaults were admitted). The trial court excluded evidence of the acquittal.
At the tampering trial Friend, Boyfriend, and the officer testified that Plexico asked Friend to lie; Plexico testified she did not ask Friend to lie. The jury convicted Plexico of third-degree witness tampering.
Plexico moved for a new trial (attached juror affidavit claimed jurors thought she had been convicted of the assaults); the court denied the new-trial motion but stayed sentence pending appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plexico's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of witness tampering	Asking a friend to lie is not criminal; statute shouldn’t criminalize a mere request to lie absent more	The statute criminalizes attempting to induce another to testify or inform falsely about an official proceeding; record shows she knew of the citation and asked Friend to lie	Affirmed: viewing evidence in favor of verdict, sufficient proof she knew of an official proceeding and attempted to induce false testimony
Admission of acquittal of underlying assault charges	Excluding the acquittal was erroneous under Rules 403/404(b); acquittal was relevant to show she did not intend false testimony	Admission would be prejudicial, confusing, and irrelevant to elements (belief an official proceeding existed / intent to induce false testimony)	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion excluding evidence of acquittal as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial
Jury instructions (mens rea) and invited error / plain error review	Instructions failed to state required mens rea for attempt/inducement (relying on Geukgeuzian) and error was not invited	Court and instructions (verbal and written) adequately informed jury that guilt requires acting intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; defense had no timely objection	Affirmed: instructions, taken as whole, fairly stated mens rea; no plain error
New trial / juror affidavit alleging juror confusion about prior conviction/acquittal	Juror affidavit showed jury misunderstood and thought Plexico had been convicted of assaults, warranting new trial	Juror affidavit issues fall under rule barring inquiry into deliberations; defendant failed to develop argument	Denied: claim inadequately developed and juror affidavit does not overcome procedural limits

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (standard for viewing evidence in support of verdict)
State v. Widdison, 4 P.3d 100 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (statutory interpretation threshold for sufficiency review)
State v. Fisher, 972 P.2d 90 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (standard for reversing convictions on sufficiency grounds)
State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (highly deferential review of jury verdicts; burden on appellant to show reasonable doubt)
State v. Nelson-Waggoner, P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000) (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Geukgeuzian, 54 P.3d 640 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (mens rea instruction issue in witness-tampering context)
State v. Geukgeuzian, 86 P.3d 742 (Utah 2004) (supreme court clarifying invited-error limits on assigning instructional error)
State v. Beckering, 358 P.3d 1131 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (jury-instruction review: instructions considered as a whole)