Case Summaries
| Publication year | 1989 |
| Pages | 31 |
William D. Holyoak and Clark R. Nielsen, J.
POLICE ENTRAPMENT; EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
The Utah Supreme Court (J. Durham) affirmed Colonna's conviction of aggravated robbery, rejecting his claim that he was entrapped to commit the offense by a participating undercover officer. Defendant claimed that the crime would not have occurred but for the officer who provided defendant drugs, alcohol and transportation. Because Sect. 76-2-303(2) excludes entrapment as a defense to "threats of bodily injury" and the aggravated robbery included such threats, there was no entrapment in this case. The Supreme Court refused to condone the unorthodox conduct of the undercover officer in encouraging defendant's criminal activities, but held that the conduct was not so outrageous in this case as to "shock the conscience" or violate due process of law. While declining to adopt a New York court test for entrapment, the Utah Court also declined to expound upon the statutory elements of the defense in Utah Code Ann. Sect. 76-2-303(1).
Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also rejected by concluding that even if counsel failed to object to objectionable material, the outcome of the trial was not reasonably likely to have been different.
State v. Colonna, 97 Utah Adv. Rep. 20 (Sup. Ct. 12/13/88).
MURDER, SECOND DEGREE, AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Defendant's second degree murder conviction was affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in a lengthy opinion discussing the propriety of several jury instructions (J. Stewart). First, jury unanimity as to which of the statutory mens rea elements defendant possessed is not required for a second degree murder conviction. Also, jury instructions given on second degree murder and manslaughter were properly patterned after the statutory language of the respective offenses in Utah Code Ann. Sect. 76-5-203 and 205(1).
The element of "depraved indifference to human life" requires an objective evaluation of the risk defendant created under the facts and circumstances of the case. "Depraved indifference means an utter callousness toward the value of human life and a complete and total indifference as to whether one's conduct will create the requisite risk of death." The court also discussed the difference between reckless manslaughter and "depraved indifference, " as applied in several recent Utah decisions.
The contention of...
To continue reading
Request your trial