State v. Ricks
2013 UT App 238
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 2009 Brad R. Ricks and Maurice Lee were drinking; during a dare Ricks placed a semiautomatic pistol to Lee’s forehead and pulled the trigger; Lee died.
- Ricks knew the magazine contained bullets and had partially pulled the slide to look in the chamber; he testified he believed no round was chambered and that he did not intend to kill Lee.
- After the shooting Ricks told 911 and police that Lee told him to shoot him and that he did so.
- Ricks was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and sentenced to 16 years to life.
- On appeal Ricks challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support depraved‑indifference murder (and other murder variants) and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to a jury instruction and the prosecutor’s closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — depraved indifference murder | The State: evidence (loaded gun, Ricks placed it to victim’s forehead and pulled the trigger; statements after shooting) shows Ricks acted knowingly and created a grave risk of death | Ricks: at most reckless manslaughter because he believed the gun was not chambered (i.e., not loaded in firing position) | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, a jury could find Ricks acted knowingly with depraved indifference and created a grave risk of death |
| Sufficiency — other murder variants (intent/knowing causing death or intending serious bodily injury) | The State: facts could support any of the statutory murder variants | Ricks: no evidence of intent to kill or intent to cause serious bodily injury | Court: need only affirm on one legally sufficient theory; depraved‑indifference theory sufficed, so other variants need not be resolved |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to instruction and closing) | Ricks: trial counsel should have objected to instruction and prosecutor’s alleged misstatement of law | State: trial court already ruled the evidentiary sufficiency of variants was a jury question (so objections would be futile); prosecutor’s closing accurately paraphrased controlling law on depraved indifference | Denied — counsel’s omissions were not prejudicial or were futile; no Strickland relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Standiford, 769 P.2d 254 (Utah 1988) (defines depraved‑indifference murder mental state and "grave risk of death")
- Boggess v. State, 655 P.2d 654 (Utah 1982) (distinguishes dry‑firing/reckless manslaughter context)
- State v. Powell, 872 P.2d 1027 (Utah 1994) (explains that jury instructions on multiple murder variants require only one legally sufficient theory to stand)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)