State v. Rogers
467 P.3d 880
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- Multiple residential burglaries in Salt Lake City (Marmalade, Central City, Arlington Hills, Capitol Hill) where doors were pried/kicked open and jewelry, electronics, IDs, and checkbooks were stolen.
- Police located Rogers near a vehicle driven by a codefendant; officers found numerous stolen items, a crowbar, backpacks containing jewelry, laptops, checkbooks, and identification cards in the vehicle; Rogers wore a distinctive Celtic-knot ring from one burglary.
- Officer photographed items and later recorded an inventory on body camera; the bodycam inventory recording was erased after 180 days due to routine retention practices and no complete written inventory was made.
- Rogers was tried and convicted on eight counts (acquitted on one burglary). He moved to dismiss under the Utah Constitution for negligent destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (lost bodycam footage) and moved for directed verdicts on (1) Arlington Hills theft (value element) and (2) possession of another’s identification documents (accomplice liability).
- The district court denied dismissal (found loss negligent/administrative, not intentional) and denied directed verdicts; Rogers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rogers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was required under Utah due process for negligent destruction of bodycam footage | State: loss was inadvertent/administrative, culpability slight, missing footage not materially prejudicial given other evidence | Rogers: footage was reasonably likely to be exculpatory (could show stolen items tied to codefendant) and dismissal is required under Utah Constitution | Court affirmed denial: assumed threshold met but balanced slight State culpability against minimal prejudice and refused dismissal |
| Sufficiency of evidence on Arlington Hills theft (value ≥ $5,000) | State: insurance appraisal and insured amount for rings provide some evidence that value exceeded $5,000 | Rogers: insurance appraisal is hearsay/not accurate; jury was instructed insurance amount not to be taken as exact value so insufficient evidence | Court affirmed denial: insured/appraisal amount constituted some evidence from which a jury could find value exceeded statutory threshold |
| Sufficiency for Identification Possession charge under accomplice theory | State: Rogers’ presence, conduct, items recovered in vehicle, crowbar, and Rogers wearing stolen ring support inference of intent to aid (accomplice liability) | Rogers: items were found in codefendant’s car with codefendant’s mail; defense argued lack of evidence Rogers possessed or aided possession | Court affirmed denial: directed verdict motion below targeted principal possession, not accomplice intent; appellate claim unpreserved but, alternatively, evidence supported accomplice inference and counsel’s omission was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (two-step test for due process when state loses/preserves evidence: threshold of reasonable probability of exculpatory value and balancing State culpability against prejudice)
- State v. DeJesus, 395 P.3d 111 (Utah 2017) (applies Tiedemann framework; defines "reasonable probability" standard)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due process limits on withholding or losing potentially exculpatory evidence under federal law)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (negligent loss of evidence requires bad faith for federal due process remedy)
- State v. Briggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008) (elements of accomplice/party liability: intent to commit offense and intent to aid principal)
- State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (standard for reviewing directed verdict/insufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to State)