State v. Thornock
2020 UT App 138
| Utah Ct. App. | 2020Background
- On Jan. 26, 2014, a Super 8 motel night manager was robbed by two masked men who used a distinctive roll of duct tape with colorful skulls; about $150–$200, keys, and documents were taken.
- Walmart surveillance showed a man and woman (later identified as Thornock and his then-girlfriend, "Wife") shopping in the hunting and craft aisles the same night; store inventory showed one roll of the distinctive duct tape and two hunting masks missing.
- Police linked the couple to a car registered to Thornock’s mother; a subsequent stop led to Thornock’s detention, discovery of methamphetamine, and a canine alert enabling a warrant to search the car, which yielded a camo mask, gloves, superglue, and mail addressed to Thornock and family.
- Wife initially lied to police but later admitted taking the duct tape, directed officers to a canyon fire pit where hoodie fragments, keys matching the motel’s keys, nametags, and mail were recovered, and ultimately cooperated at trial against Thornock.
- Thornock moved (and lost) suppression challenges in the earlier meth case; at the robbery trial he sought to exclude his statement, “I don’t steal, I kill,” and objected to a prosecutor’s closing that suggested mere purchase/possession of duct tape could convict him; defense helped craft and approved the court’s curative jury instruction.
- The jury convicted Thornock of aggravated robbery; on appeal the court affirmed, addressing invited error, admissibility under Utah R. Evid. 403, inherent improbability of Wife’s testimony, and collateral estoppel regarding the Fourth Amendment suppression issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct: closing suggested mere purchase/looking at tape could convict | Prosecutor: argument clarified accomplice liability; curative instruction suffices | Thornock: instruction insufficient to cure prejudice | Invited error: defense helped craft/approved instruction, so defendant cannot complain; no review of adequacy |
| Admissibility of statement “I don’t steal, I kill” under Utah R. Evid. 403 | State: statement relevant to denial of stealing, to contextual rebuttal of alibi/inconsistencies, and as acknowledgment of harm | Thornock: inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial | Court did not abuse discretion: statement given context and explanation, probative value outweighed risk of prejudice |
| Sufficiency/Inherent improbability of Wife’s testimony (directed verdict) | State: Wife’s testimony corroborated by surveillance and physical evidence, so sufficient | Thornock: Wife lied earlier, was inconsistent and biased (divorce), so testimony inherently improbable and should be disregarded | Denied: inconsistencies and motive affect weight not admissibility; corroborating physical evidence defeats inherent improbability claim |
| Collateral estoppel as to Fourth Amendment suppression ruling | State: prior denial of suppression in meth case bars relitigation | Thornock: lower court erred in applying collateral estoppel to bar Fourth Amendment claim and asks plain-error review | Not considered: Thornock inadequately briefed plain-error/collateral-estoppel arguments, so appellate court declined to address them |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mead, 27 P.3d 1115 (Utah 2001) (error cured by instruction requires overwhelming probability jury could not follow instruction to reverse)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (invited error doctrine bars review when counsel affirmatively approved proceedings)
- State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (Utah 2012) (doctrine precluding review of invited error)
- State v. Beverly, 435 P.3d 160 (Utah 2018) (trial court has wide discretion on relevance and Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Skinner, 457 P.3d 421 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (standards for inherent improbability and corroboration defeats such claims)
- State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (inconsistencies and motive affect weight, not inherent improbability)
- State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (framework for inherent improbability doctrine)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (plain-error review requirements)
- State v. Doyle, 437 P.3d 1266 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (preservation rules for credibility/inherent improbability challenges)
- State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (appellate court will not consider inadequately briefed arguments)