Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed Martin Cameron Bond’s convictions for aggravated murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery. The court held that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by calling Bond’s codefendant, who invoked the Fifth Amendment, that Bond failed to establish a Confrontation Clause violation or resulting prejudice, and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek merger of the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated murder convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by calling codefendant Benjamin Rettig to testify after Rettig indicated that he intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, requiring a mistrial.
- Whether the prosecutor's use of leading questions directed to Rettig, who refused to answer substantive questions, violated Bond's rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- Whether, for an unpreserved federal constitutional claim reviewed for plain error, the defendant bears the burden of proving prejudice.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to merge Bond's aggravated kidnapping conviction with his aggravated murder conviction.
Holdings
- The prosecutor did not commit misconduct by calling Rettig after the State granted him use immunity and there was no indication that the prosecutor called him merely to emphasize his invocation of the privilege. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Bond's motion for a mistrial.
- For an unpreserved federal constitutional claim reviewed under Utah's plain-error doctrine, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmful.
- Bond failed to establish plain error or ineffective assistance based on the prosecutor's leading questions to Rettig because he did not demonstrate prejudice.
- Aggravated kidnapping does not merge with aggravated murder when it constitutes an aggravating circumstance under the amended aggravated-murder statute. Counsel therefore was not ineffective for failing to file a futile merger motion.
Key quotations
“We reject each ground and affirm Mr. Bond’s convictions.” (¶ 2)
“requiring a defendant to demonstrate prejudice on an unpreserved claim harmonizes the prejudice inquiries under the plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel doctrines.” (¶ 45)
“The plain language of this amended aggravated murder statue—under which Mr. Bond was convicted—can leave no doubt that the Legislature intended that a predicate offense does not merge with the homicide conviction.” (¶ 71)
Factual background
Bond and codefendant Benjamin Rettig planned to steal guns from Kay Mortensen's home. During the robbery, Mortensen was killed and his son and daughter-in-law were bound and threatened; Bond and Rettig left with approximately twenty guns. After Bond's ex-wife contacted police, officers searched Bond's home pursuant to a warrant, found stolen guns, obtained admissions from Bond, and recovered additional guns from a park. At trial, Rettig invoked the Fifth Amendment despite a state use-immunity grant, and the jury convicted Bond of all charged offenses.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Bond on all charged counts in the Fourth District Court. He was sentenced to life without parole for aggravated murder and received substantial sentences on the remaining charges. Bond timely appealed, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.