525 P.3d 550
Utah Ct. App.2023Background:
- Defendant Karrar Suhail, addicted to oxycodone, purchased pills from the victim; on Dec. 8–9, 2016 the victim was found stabbed 39 times and missing cash, pills, and phone.
- A customer saw Suhail leaving the victim’s apartment shortly after midnight wearing a hoodie and red shoes; cell-records placed Suhail’s phone near the victim’s apartment overnight and later near Suhail’s mother’s apartment.
- Crime-scene footwear examination produced a partial bloody outsole impression; a forensic technician matched the tread to an Asics Gel Resolution 5 pattern but gave equivocal, low-confidence size estimates.
- The State introduced two example Asics shoes (one labeled size 10 that was actually a women’s shoe), and evidence showed Suhail previously photographed wearing Asics Gel Resolution 5 shoes and had cash/pills after the murder.
- Defense contested admissibility and disclosure of the shoe evidence, challenged Detective’s testimony and two prosecutor remarks in closing; trial counsel presented limited defense (neighbor-focused theory) and Suhail was convicted on all counts.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Suhail) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of outsole comparison (Utah R. Evid. 401/403) | Outsole match to Asics model is relevant and probative; technician may give lay opinion about tread match | Testimony irrelevant or misleading because no direct link to Suhail’s actual shoes or shoe size; unfairly prejudicial | Court: admission not an abuse of discretion — tread comparison minimally relevant and probative; size limitations and weaknesses for jury to weigh |
| Foundation / disclosure for example shoes; Expert Notice Statute & Rule 16 | State: technician may testify (initially as lay/701); disclosure obligations satisfied; no bad faith | Suhail: State failed to disclose expert/report and the size-10 shoe being a women’s shoe ambushed defense; violated expert notice and rule 16 -> exclude or mistrial | Court: even if disclosure lapses occurred, remedies (continuance/exclusion) apply only for deliberate bad faith; no bad faith found and no prejudice shown -> no relief |
| Detective’s testimony that investigation found no contradictory evidence (bolstering) | Testimony summarized investigation results and was permissible inquiry on direct | Suhail: testimony bolstered other witnesses, was improper lay conclusion and prejudicial | Held: any harm mitigated by cross-examination where Detective admitted contradictions; no prejudice shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing: (a) "25 years is murder time" (b) "chicken feed bullshit" re: pigeon food | (a) Argues jurors can draw reasonable inference from defendant’s remark (b) rhetorical flourish criticizing defense theory | (a) Improper (invokes matters outside evidence); court cured by sustaining objection and curative instruction (b) not objected at trial; improper but unpreserved | (a) Court’s curative instruction adequate; no mistrial/new trial (abuse of discretion standard) (b) Plain-error standard not met; no reversal |
| Ineffective assistance / Rule 23B remand (failure to investigate/shoe-size evidence; failure to present neighbor’s shoe size) | State: trial counsel strategy; even absent shoe-size testimony, circumstantial case strong | Suhail: counsel failed to investigate technician’s opinions, failed to learn size-10 was women’s, and omitted Neighbor’s shoe-size evidence; requests remand under rule 23B | Held: Strickland prejudice not shown given weak size-estimate testimony and strong circumstantial evidence; rule 23B remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yalowski, 404 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (forensic outsole comparison may be admissible as lay opinion under Rule 701)
- State v. Alzaga, 352 P.3d 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Peraza, 469 P.3d 1023 (Utah 2020) (Expert Notice Statute remedies and standards)
- State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (plain-error test for unpreserved claims)
- State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) (discovery violations and remedial discretion; prejudice standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 428 P.3d 1038 (Utah 2018) (cumulative-error framework)