440 P.3d 694
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- While visiting her boyfriend, Rivera took his drugs to stop his use, placed them in her purse, and later placed the purse on the bedroom bed. Shortly thereafter a confrontation occurred in which the boyfriend and his brother threatened Rivera with a gun and fled.
- Rivera retrieved a loaded .22 pistol from the apartment and concealed it in her bra when she left to gather her daughter; police arrived and detained her just outside the apartment complex gate on a grassy common area.
- Police later observed Rivera’s purse (removed from the apartment by her sister/daughter), found a pouch with suspected drugs, paraphernalia, and two .22 rounds; Rivera denied ownership of the drugs at trial, saying she had taken the drugs from the boyfriend to prevent his use.
- Rivera was tried on multiple counts and sought jury instructions for the affirmative defenses of innocent possession (of the drugs) and compulsion (for both drugs and the gun); the trial court denied both instructions and Rivera was convicted of carrying a loaded concealed firearm and possession of a controlled substance.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the drug-possession conviction (holding the trial court erred by refusing an innocent-possession instruction), affirmed the firearm conviction (sufficient evidence that she was not on her property and compulsion did not apply), and upheld admission of officers’ testimony about responding to a report of a woman with a gun.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rivera's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera was entitled to an innocent-possession instruction for possession of a controlled substance | There was no evidence Rivera took steps to promptly rid herself of the drugs; instruction not warranted | She took the drugs from her boyfriend innocently to prevent his use and the possession may have been transitory given the chaotic events | Court: Reversible error to refuse the instruction; evidence provided a reasonable basis for the jury to find innocent, transitory possession; drug conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether Rivera was entitled to a compulsion instruction (drugs) | The threats did not force her to keep the drugs; she was not coerced to retain them | She was coerced by threats and could not safely return the drugs | Court: Denial affirmed; evidence contradicted that threats compelled her to retain the drugs |
| Whether Rivera was entitled to a compulsion instruction (firearm) | After the men fled, any threat dissipated; she was not coerced to possess the gun | She retrieved the gun out of fear and because of threats; compulsion instruction warranted | Court: Denial affirmed; no evidence of present, imminent coercion forcing her to possess the gun when she retrieved it |
| Whether officers’ testimony that they responded to a report of a “woman with a gun” was inadmissible hearsay | Statement was admissible as description of information received and not offered for truth | Use of the phrase “woman with a gun” risked identifying Rivera and was hearsay | Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion; description was not a hearsay use to prove the truth of the matter asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Miller, 193 P.3d 92 (Utah 2008) (recognizes innocent-possession defense elements)
- United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (innocent, transitory possession issues are jury questions when plausible)
- Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234 (Utah 1998) (property ownership described as a bundle of rights)
- State v. Ott, 763 P.2d 810 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (compulsion defense requires coercion and lack of reasonable alternative)
- State v. Harding, 635 P.2d 33 (Utah 1981) (imminence requirement for threats supporting compulsion defense)