State v. Smith, 449 P.3d 971

Background

Smith agreed to help Ashton after Ashton, a known informant, asked for a "piece" to defend himself; Smith arrived with weapons and participated in a violent encounter at Ashton’s apartment.
Ashton shot Roommate and Friend; Smith subsequently attacked Girlfriend with a pipe and knife, killing her. Friend survived and called police; Ashton was arrested and Smith later turned himself in and confessed during a police interview.
Smith was charged with aggravated murder and aggravated assault; he moved to suppress his custodial statement and to exclude crime-scene video and autopsy photos; both motions were denied.
At trial the State played an audio of Smith’s interrogation; an officer later testified about a post-interview conversation in which Smith said he feared Ashton would shoot him if he did not comply.
Smith sought a compulsion jury instruction and sought admission of jailhouse letters and evidence of Ashton’s prior violent conduct; the court denied the compulsion instruction and redacted or excluded portions of the additional evidence as irrelevant or hearsay.
The jury convicted Smith of murder (aggravated murder reduced due to mitigation of extreme emotional distress), acquitted him of aggravated assault, and Smith appealed raising Miranda, compulsion instruction, evidentiary rulings, and mistrial issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether Miranda warnings were adequate and whether questioning should have ceased after Smith’s statement about inability to afford counsel	Warnings, read as a whole, informed Smith of right to counsel and to an appointed lawyer; Smith’s "I can’t afford one" was not an unequivocal invocation requiring cessation	Warnings were insufficiently clear about right to appointed counsel before questioning and his statement was an ambiguous invocation that required clarification or cessation	Court affirmed: warnings adequate; under Davis/Berghuis an invocation must be unequivocal, so no suppression required
Whether Smith was entitled to a compulsion instruction	Compulsion requires evidence of a specific, imminent threat communicated to defendant; State argued evidence was insufficient	Smith argued fear of Ashton and his prior violent propensities supported compulsion (and jailhouse kites/gas station incident would show propensity)	Court affirmed denial: only speculative fear shown; no specific imminent threat proved; compulsion instruction not warranted
Whether crime-scene video and autopsy photos were unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403	Photographs/video were highly probative on the aggravator (heinous/cruel manner) and not substantially outweighed by prejudice; court mitigated prejudice (e.g., black-and-white photos)	Smith argued the images were inflammatory and cumulative of medical testimony, so should be excluded	Court affirmed admission: probative value for aggravator outweighed prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether exclusion/redaction of jailhouse kites, omission of gas-station incident, and timing of officer’s testimony warranted reversal or mistrial	Excluded evidence was either hearsay/irrelevant to Smith’s state of mind at the time; any timing delay was invited by Smith and ultimately harmless because compulsion defense was unsupported	Smith argued the evidence bore on his fear of Ashton (compulsion/mitigation) and the delayed admission of officer testimony prejudiced his trial under rule of completeness	Court affirmed: exclusion/redactions did not affect outcome (harmless); any delay was invited and, because compulsion was unavailable, no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (Miranda warnings need not be literal so long as they reasonably convey rights)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (invocation standards apply in pre- and post-waiver contexts; ambiguous references do not require cessation)
State v. Strain, 779 P.2d 221 (Utah 1989) (Utah court upholding warnings that inform defendant of right to counsel despite delayed appointment language)
State v. Wood, 868 P.2d 70 (Utah 1993) (discussing ambiguous/equivocal invocations and requirement to clarify before further questioning)
State v. Leyva, 951 P.2d 738 (Utah 1997) (addressing scope of Wood after Davis and federal standards)
State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1989) (heinousness aggravator requires evidence of physical torture or serious abuse prior to death)