State v. Weaver

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed Ken Weaver's convictions for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and failure to respond to an officer's signal to stop. The court held that the reasonable-doubt and jury-instruction claims lacked merit and that the trial court did not plainly err by declining to reread preliminary instructions. The court also declined to review the police-report evidentiary claim because the applicable exceptions were not raised at trial and plain error was not asserted in the opening brief.

Holdings

1. A reasonable-doubt instruction is valid when, viewed as a whole, it correctly communicates that the defendant may be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the charged crime; the instruction need not use the term "obviate." Weaver's instructions satisfied that standard and did not violate due process.
2. Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(g)(6) requires the trial judge to provide some instruction when the evidence concludes, but does not require rereading every instruction previously given. The trial court's failure to reread the preliminary instructions was not error or plain error under the circumstances.
3. A party must make a timely and specific objection in the trial court to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal. Weaver did not preserve reliance on the business-records or public-records exceptions and did not argue plain error in his opening brief; therefore, the claim was procedurally barred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the reasonable-doubt jury instructions violated due process because they did not use the term "obviate."
2. Whether the trial court erred or committed plain error by failing to reread preliminary jury instructions concerning the presumption of innocence and the State's burden of proof at the close of evidence.
3. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the police report under the hearsay exceptions for statements against interest, business records, or public records, and whether Weaver preserved the latter grounds for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed