The State of Utah, Plaintiff/Appellee, Vs. Ronald Craig Lindberg

Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2005 The tS ate of Utah, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Ronald Craig Lindberg, Defendant/Appellant : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Laura B. Dupaix; Assistant Attorney General. John Walsh. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Utah v. Lindberg, No. 20050909 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/6070 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. \f!LED UTA HAPP|^C0URTS BEFORE THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS -00000000O00000000- THE STATE OF UTAH, COURT OF APPEALS CASE Plaintiff-Appellee, NO. 20050909-CA vs. DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 041600057 RONALD CRAIG LINDBERG, Defendant-Appellant. -00000000O00000000- BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SANPETE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH HONORABLE K. L. MCIFF PRESIDING LAURA B. DUPAIX JOHN WALSH ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY AT LAW 160 EAST 300 SOUTH, SIXTH FLOOR 2319 FOOTHILL DRIVE, SUITE 270 P.O. BOX 140854 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84109 84114-0854 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED PUBLICATION REQUESTED FILED UTAH APPELLATE COURTS APR 1 1 2006 NAMES OF THE PARTIES ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPTION. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES vi STATEMENT SHOWING JURISDICTION iv STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES iv DETERMINATIVE LAW iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE ii NATURE OF THE CASE ii COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS ii DISPOSITION AT TRIAL COURT i SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT i STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 1 ARGUMENT ONE 5 THE TRIAL COURT ERRORRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH HIS THEORY OF THE CASE THORUGH CROSS EXAMINATION OF WILLIAM CLARK ARGUMENT TWO 22 THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL BY VIRTUE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT ARGUMENT THREE 31 THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL CONCLUSION 49 RELIEF SOUGHT 50 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 51 ADDENDUM 52 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TABLE OF CASES Alford vs. United States. 282 U.S. 687 (1931) 19 Brookhart vs. Janis. 384 U.S. 1 19 Davis vs. Alaska. 415 U.S. 308. 315 (1974) 15 Douglas vs. Alabama. 380 U.S. 415. 4189 (1965) 18 Greene vs. McElroy. 360 U. S. 474. 496 (1959) 18 Lander vs. Industrial Commission of Utah. 894 P.2d 552, 554 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) 15 Pointer vs. Texas. 380 U.S.400 (1965) 17 Smith vs. Illinois. 390 U.2. 129.131 (1968) 19 State vs. Calliham. 2002 UT 86. 55 P.3d 573 26 State vs. Chestnut 621 P.2d 1228, 1233 (Utah 1980) 15 State vs. Colwell. 2000 UT 8.994 P.2d 177 iv,27 State vs. Emmett 839 P.2d 781. 785 (Utah 1992) 27 State vs. Gentry. 747 P.2d 1032. 1035 (Utah 1987) 14 State vs. Giles. 966 P.2d 872 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) 32 State vs. Gomez 2002 UT 120. 63 P.3d 72 14 State vs. Gonzales. 2005 UT 72 14,15 State vs. Hackford. 737 P.2d 200. (Utah 1987) 15 State vs. Heaps. 2000 UT 5. 999 P.2d 565. (I Jtahr 2000) 31 State vs. Johnson. 663 P.2d 48. 51 (Utah 1983)) 27 State v. Kell 2002 UT106. 61 P.3d 1019) 14 State vs. Kohl. 2000 UT 35. 999 P.2d 7 27 State vs. Lindgren, 910 P.2d 1268 (UtahCt. App. 1996) 12, 16 State vs. Patterson. 656 P.2d 438 (Utah 1982) 13 State vs. Rudolph 3 P.3d, 192 (Utah App. 2000) 11 State vs. Stringham. 2001 UT 13. (Utah. 2001) ii, 31 State vs. Tarafa, 720 P.2d 1368. 1372 (Utah. 1986) 27 State vs. Tarrats, 2005 UT 50 iv,14 State vs.Troy, 688 P.2d 483.486 (Utah 1984) 27 State vs. Valdez, 30 Utah 2d 54, 513 P.2d 422 (1973) 27 State vs. Yanez. 42 P.3d 1248. (Utah Ct. App. 2002) 31 CONSTITUTIONS Article I, Section 12, Utah State Constitution 20 Amendment VI, United States Constitution ii UTAH CODE ANNOTATED 78-2a-3(2)(e) Utah Code Annotated iv STATEMENT SHOWING JURISDICTION The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 78-2a-3(2)(e), as this is an appeal from a Court of Record regarding a criminal matter. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ARGUMENT ONE - THE TRIAL COURT ERRORRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH HIS THEORY OF THE CASE THROUGH CROSS EXAMINATION OF WILL CLARK. STANDARD OF REVIEW - Trial Courts have broad discretion in restricting the scope of cross examination, and on appeal the Trial Court's ruling is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. State vs. Tarrats, 2005 UT 50 LOWER COURT -This issue was raised with the Trial Court at page 4, of the June 17, 2005 Transcript. ARGUMENT TWO - THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL BY VIRTUE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT STANDARD OF REVIEW - The Appellate Courts will reverse a Jury Verdict because of Prosecutorial misconduct if it finds the Prosecutor's remarks were improper and harmful to the Defendant. State vs. Colwell, 2000 UT 8,994 P.2d 177. LOWER COURT - This issue was raised at the Trial Court level at page 6 of the August 3, 2005 Transcript. ARGUMENT THREE -THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL (FOR OTHER REASONS) STANDARD OF REVIEW: The Appellate Court will reverse a jury verdict only when it finds that the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust. State vs. Stringham, 2001 UT13, (Utah, 2001). LOWER COURT - This issue was raised at the Trial Court level as a Motion for a New Trial. DETERMINATIVE LAW In Article I, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution is the following: (Rights of accused persons) In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, and the right of appeal in all cases. In no instances shall any accused person, before final judgment, be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. The accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, a wife shall not be compelled to testify against her husband, nor a husband against his wife, nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. AMENDMENT VI - UNITED STATES CONSTITUION (RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of counsel for his defense. STATEMENT OF THF CASE This is an appeal from a Jury Verdict of Guilty to Statutory Rape of a Child, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor, and two Courts of Providing Alcohol to a Minor. NATURE OF THE CASE The Appellant is challenging the limitation on his Rights of the State and Federal Constitutions to Confront and Cross Examine the State's witnesses. This witness was allowed to testify, however, the Defendant was not allowed to cross examine him regarding any motive that he may have had. Additionally this witness was a critical witness to establish the theory of the Defendant. I II! Ih 11 III I'lHM I MMIN<;S Appellant filed a Motion to Arrest the Judgment, a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and a Motion for a New Trial, all of which were denied by the Trial Court. DISPOSITION BY THE TRIAL COURT The Trial Court denied all Post Trial Motions and sentenced the Defendant, Ronald Craig Lindberg to Prison for the indeterminate term of five years to life. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS Argument One - Appellant argues that his Constitutional Rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions were violated in that he was not allowed to confront and cross examine the State's witnesses. This witness would have not only testified about his motive to testify as he did, but he would also supply a critical element to the Defense theory of Fatal Attraction. Argument Two - Appellant argues that there was Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Arguments. The Prosecutor proposed a theory to the Jury that was not only totally unsupported by the facts, but was contrary to all witnesses and all exhibits. If the Jury accepted the only theory submitted by the Prosecution, then they based their Verdict on something other than the evidence.

Load more