State v. Zaragoza, 287 P.3d 510

Defendant Zaragoza was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and domestic violence in the presence of a child after an incident at a motel involving his wife and her eight-year-old daughter.
Wife invoked spousal testimonial privilege; State sought admission of Wife’s statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing.
Trial court held an evidentiary hearing and admitted Wife’s statements; jury convicted on all charges.
Defense requested merger-based jury instruction; trial court refused, and defense did not preserve a lesser-included offense instruction claim.
Appeal argues (i) improper failure to give a lesser-included instruction for aggravated assault, and (ii) improper admission of statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing.
Court affirms the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lesser-included offense instruction on assault	State argues overlap warrants instruction	Zaragoza argues for lesser-included instruction	Not preserved; declined to address
Admissibility of Wife’s statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing	State contends admission proper	Zaragoza contests the doctrine’s application	Admissible; error, if any, harmless due to Wife testifying

State v. Finlayson, 956 P.2d 283 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (merger vs. lesser-included offense distinctions)
State v. Kerr, 228 P.3d 1255 (Utah App. 2010) (distinguishes merger doctrine from lesser-included offenses)
State v. Evans, 20 P.3d 888 (Utah 2001) (guidance on when lesser-included instruction is appropriate)
State v. Brooks, 908 P.2d 856 (Utah 1995) (definition of lesser-included offenses)
State v. Poole, 232 P.3d 519 (Utah 2010) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing framework for confrontation clause)
State v. Maese, 236 P.3d 155 (Utah App. 2010) (preservation requirements on appellate review)