State v. Ramirez
2012 UT 59
| Utah | 2012Background
- Ramirez directed a woman to retrieve a glass pipe from his motel room while he was jailed on drug charges.
- Jailor arranged for Ramirez to speak with Drug Task Force; Ramirez encouraged a room search to locate the pipe.
- Police found the pipe in the motel room exactly where Ramirez said it would be; Ramirez admitted having a problem.
- A syringe and methamphetamine residue were found in Ramirez's room; only Ramirez's belongings were present.
- Magistrate denied bindover for trial, citing lack of knowledge or control over the contraband.
- Utah Court of Appeals affirmed; court held insufficient evidence of exclusivity and Ramirez's knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause existed to bind over for trial | Ramirez lacked knowledge/control over contraband. | Two reasonable inferences exist; prosecution's inference should prevail. | Yes; probable cause existed to bind over Ramirez. |
| Adequacy of circumstantial evidence at bindover | Evidence insufficient to show dominion or knowledge. | Circumstantial evidence can support probable cause if reasonable. | Circumstantial evidence adequate to support probable cause. |
| Role of magistrate in choosing between competing inferences | Magistrate properly weighed inferences; defense favored. | Jury should resolve competing inferences, not magistrate. | Magistrate cannot resolve competing inferences; bindover should occur. |
| Exclusivity of control over the motel room | Lack of exclusivity undermines inference of knowledge/control. | Exclusivity not required; two reasonable inferences exist. | Lack of exclusivity does not defeat probable cause; two inferences viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Virgin, 137 P.3d 787 (Utah 2006) (bindover standard permits limited deference to magistrate)
- State v. Hernandez, 268 P.3d 822 (Utah 2011) (probable cause standard in preliminary hearings)
- Brown v. Div. of Water Rights of Dep't of Natural Resources, 228 P.3d 747 (Utah 2010) (de novo review of certiorari questions)
- State v. Nickles, 728 P.2d 123 (Utah 1986) (circumstantial evidence admissible to prove guilt)