Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed Roland McNeil’s conviction for aggravated assault as an accomplice. The court held that defense counsel did not invite the alleged error in admitting preliminary-hearing testimony concerning telephone records, but concluded that any error was not prejudicial because the records likely could have been admitted through other evidence. The court therefore upheld the conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defense counsel's withdrawal of a hearsay objection after the trial court stated that the testimony was not hearsay constituted invited error barring appellate review.
- Whether the admission of the detective's testimony concerning the telephone records was prejudicial under plain-error or ineffective-assistance review.
Holdings
- Defense counsel did not invite the alleged error because counsel's withdrawal of the hearsay argument resulted from the trial court's interpretation and insistence that the testimony was not hearsay, rather than from a clear affirmative representation independently made by counsel inviting an erroneous ruling.
- McNeil failed to establish prejudice because the court remained confident that the telephone records would have been admitted through another proper method and would have conveyed substantially the same information as the detective's testimony.
Key quotations
“The State’s argument is unpersuasive because an error of this sort by the trial court is not invited but merely unpreserved, and thus remains subject to plain error review.” (¶ 21)
“We reject the State’s arguments and hold that Mr. McNeil did not invite the alleged error in this case because his counsel withdrew the hearsay argument due to actions of the trial court, and because counsel’s failure to object to a trial court’s actions is not invited error in this context.” (¶ 23)
“We hold that defense counsel’s withdrawal of the hearsay argument at trial was not invited error. But we also hold that the error Mr. McNeil alleges on appeal was not prejudicial. We therefore affirm.” (¶ 46)
Factual background
Quentin McNeil assaulted his father's former co-worker after learning about the conflict between them and gathering information about the victim. Police obtained telephone records showing six calls between Quentin and Roland McNeil on the morning of the assault, including a call overlapping the time Quentin entered the victim's apartment complex and another shortly after the attack. At the preliminary hearing, a detective testified from notes based on the telephone records; after the detective died, the State introduced that testimony at trial, and McNeil was convicted largely on the telephone-call evidence.
Procedural history
McNeil was convicted in Utah district court of aggravated assault as an accomplice based largely on evidence concerning telephone calls between him and his son. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that defense counsel invited any hearsay error and, alternatively, that any ineffective assistance was not prejudicial. The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, rejected the invited-error characterization, but affirmed because McNeil failed to establish prejudice.