State v. Roman, 356 P.3d 185

Background

Roberto Miramontes Roman was arrested after a police officer was shot and killed; he was charged with aggravated murder, tampering with evidence, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person.
A jury acquitted Roman of aggravated murder but convicted him of evidence tampering and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person; he appeals only the latter conviction.
Utah law made it a felony for a Category II restricted person (including an alien unlawfully in the U.S.) to possess a firearm; the State had to prove possession and the defendant’s restricted-person status.
The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial: the jury would decide possession; if guilty, the court would decide restricted-person status. Roman’s counsel orally stated in court that they had “stipulated that he is here illegally,” and a written stipulation signed by counsel and the prosecutor was filed.
After the jury found possession, the district court (the trier of fact for the restriction element) sentenced Roman on the restricted-person count without re-presenting the stipulation to the jury.
On appeal Roman argued (1) the State failed to prove he was unlawfully in the U.S. because the stipulation was not presented to the factfinder at the right time, and (2) the stipulation was invalid because counsel made it without a colloquy establishing Roman’s knowing and voluntary waiver.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Roman was a restricted person	The State relied on the oral and written stipulation; the court had the stipulation when deciding the restriction element.	Roman: No evidence showed he was unlawfully in the U.S.; stipulation was never presented to the factfinder (jury).	Court: Roman failed to preserve the claim; any error was not plain because law was not settled; affirmed.
Whether stipulation had to be presented to the jury after verdict	State: Bifurcation and judicial consideration satisfied due process; judge (trier) knew the stipulation.	Roman: Stipulations must be presented to the finder of fact (jury) to permit a valid conviction.	Court: Assumed arguendo stipulations must be presented, but here the judge (not a jury) was aware; any obligation to repeat stipulation post-verdict was not obvious error.
Validity of counsel-entered stipulation without colloquy	State: No Utah law requires a colloquy; counsel’s stipulation and filing were sufficient.	Roman: Counsel’s stipulation waived an element; court should have conducted colloquy to ensure knowing, voluntary waiver.	Court: No settled Utah law requiring colloquy; failure to conduct one was not obvious error—plain-error review fails.
Invocation of plain-error doctrine to overcome preservation	State: Trial court could reasonably rely on counsel’s oral and written stipulations; no clear legal rule was violated.	Roman: Claims unpreserved; asks for plain-error relief because no contemporaneous objection.	Court: To obtain plain-error relief Roman had to show an error obvious under existing law—he did not; plain-error exception not met.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (discussing plain error exception to preservation rules)
State v. Waterfield, 322 P.3d 1194 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (plain-error standard requires an error that should have been obvious to the trial court)
United States v. Smith, 472 F.3d 752 (10th Cir. 2006) (government must inform jury of defendant’s stipulation so jurors have information needed to convict)
United States v. James, 987 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1993) (reversal where stipulation was made outside jury’s presence and never presented)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 995 N.E.2d 1100 (Mass. 2013) (stipulations should be presented before close of evidence, though substance may be communicated by other means)
State v. Davis, 311 P.3d 538 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (error is not obvious if no settled appellate law to guide trial court)