State v. Santonio, 265 P.3d 822

Background

On June 21, 2008, a police officer attempted to execute Santonio's arrest warrant; Santonio resisted, tried to flee, and attempted to take the officer's gun, eventually escaping on a bicycle.
Santonio was located after several officers subdued him, and during restraint he injured an officer with a knife; charges followed for disarming a police officer (felony), aggravated assault (felony), assault against a police officer (misdemeanor), and interfering with a legal arrest (misdemeanor).
While awaiting trial, Santonio was confined in the Utah County Jail and was sometimes transported for hearings; he was held in contempt for failure to appear after refusing transport, with a ruling upheld on appeal of a different judge.
Trial did not occur until March 2008, nearly five years after the events; Santonio largely represented himself after several defense counsels withdrew, claiming jail personnel impeded communication; the court granted continuances and allowed extensive telephone access to help him obtain counsel.
In December 2006 the court conducted a Frampton colloquy warning Santonio about the dangers of self-representation; after the competency hearing (Feb. 2, 2007) the court ruled Santonio competent to proceed, relying on two experts and its own observations despite acknowledging mental illness.
At arraignment in Sept. 2007 Santonio pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity; prior motions sought to suppress and limit testimony and challenge the mental state question, which the court denied; pretrial discovery requests regarding a disk of photographs were denied; Santonio proceeded pro se at trial in March 2008 and was convicted on all charges after a three-day trial; arrest-judgment relief was denied on post-trial motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of counsel was voluntary and intelligent?	Santonio contends the waiver was not knowingly made due to mental health and communications barriers.	Santonio argues the waiver was not voluntary or informed because of confinement and mental illness.	Waiver was voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently made.
Contempt procedures and due process	Santonio claims summary contempt without notice violated due process.	State asserts immediate punishment was justified by in-court disruption; any error was harmless.	No reversible error; any error was harmless given subsequent opportunity to respond.
Rule 704(b) applicability to mental-state questions	Santonio argues the court improperly sought an opinion on mental state about intent.	Rule 704(b) limits expert testimony to trial, not pretrial evaluation; no violation at trial.	Rule 704(b) did not apply to the pretrial mental evaluation; no error.
Access to photographs and Brady	Santonio seeks access to a disk of photographs claiming exculpatory value; Brady violated if withheld.	State provided copies; denial was not an abuse of discretion and Brady does not apply post-hoc.	No abuse of discretion; Brady not applicable given pretrial knowledge and access.
Jury instruction on attempt	Santonio requested a separate attempt instruction to allow convictions on lesser offenses.	Attempt instruction was inappropriate given how offenses were charged and defined.	Court correctly declined to give a separate attempt instruction; issue not preserved.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pedockie, 2006 UT 28 (Utah) (standard for waiver of counsel—voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
State v. Frampton, 787 P.2d 188 (Utah) (Frampton colloquy on rights and self-representation)
Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings on waiver)
Gardiner v. York, 2010 UT App 108 (Utah) (due process limits on summary contempt)
State v. Webster, 2001 UT App 288 (Utah) (rule 704(b) interpretation; ultimate issues reserved for trier of fact)
State v. Tanner, 2011 UT App 39 (Utah) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66 (Utah) (preservation of error in jury instructions)