2018 UT App 203

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee,

v.

TALEA LOUISE HOLLAND,

Appellant.

Opinion

No. 20170018-CA

Filed October 25, 2018

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Katie Bernards-Goodman

No. 151903001

Justin Knell, Attorney for Appellant

Simarjit S. Gill and Richard J. Pehrson, Attorneys

for Appellee

JUDGE DIANA HAGEN authored this Opinion, in which 

JUDGES KATE A. TOOMEY and DAVID N. MORTENSEN concurred.

HAGEN, Judge:

¶1 Talea Louise Holland appeals her conviction for 

possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. She 

contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

establish that she was a restricted person, namely an unlawful

user of a controlled substance. We affirm.
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 2 2018 UT App 203

BACKGROUND1

¶2 A police officer responded to a local hardware store to 

investigate a report of retail theft by Holland. After speaking 

with Holland and the loss prevention employee, the officer 

arrested Holland for shoplifting. In performing a search incident 

to that arrest, the officer found several suspicious items in 

Holland’s purse. Specifically, the officer found brass knuckles

and a small, black kit that contained a pick and two spoons 

covered with brown residue. Relying on sixteen years of 

experience as a police officer and his drug-specific training, the 

officer believed that the pick was a type commonly associated 

with drug use and that the brown residue on the spoons was 

consistent with heroin.

¶3 Based on “the way she looked that day” and her 

“demeanor,” the officer suspected that Holland was “struggling” 

and asked her whether “she had a problem with drugs.”

According to the officer, Holland responded that “she is a drug 

user,” “she was having some issues with it,” and she had “been 

struggling to control her addiction.”

¶4 The State charged Holland with possession of a 

dangerous weapon by a restricted person, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and retail theft. With respect to the possession of 

a dangerous weapon charge, the State contended that the brass 

knuckles in Holland’s purse constituted a “dangerous weapon”

and that she was a restricted person based on her status as an 

“unlawful user of a controlled substance.” At Holland’s request, 

the court bifurcated the trial on that count. The jury would 

 

1. “In reviewing the [district] court’s ruling, we recite the facts in 

the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” State v. 

Larsen, 2000 UT App 106, ¶ 2, 999 P.2d 1252 (quotation 

simplified).
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 3 2018 UT App 203

consider whether Holland intentionally or knowingly possessed 

a dangerous weapon. If it found that she had, the district court 

would then determine whether she was an unlawful user of a 

controlled substance restricted from possessing such a weapon.

¶5 At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Holland guilty of 

possession of a dangerous weapon, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and retail theft. The district court then considered

the bifurcated element and found beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Holland was an unlawful user of a controlled substance. In 

reaching this conclusion, the district court focused on Holland’s 

statement that she was “struggling” with her drug addiction, 

which the court interpreted as currently relapsing or using 

controlled substances. In its oral ruling, the court also pointed to 

the drug paraphernalia in Holland’s purse as evidence that she 

was currently using drugs. The court entered a judgment of 

conviction on all three counts.

¶6 Holland appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 Holland initially raised three issues on appeal, contending 

that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove 

three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the brass 

knuckles were a “dangerous weapon” as defined in Utah Code 

section 76-10-501(6); (2) that the black kit constituted drug 

paraphernalia under the factors in Utah Code section 58-37a-4;

and (3) that she was an “unlawful user of a controlled 

substance,” restricted from possessing a dangerous weapon 

under Utah Code section 76-10-503(1)(b)(iii).

¶8 The first two issues were tried to the jury. At trial, 

Holland did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jury’s verdict. Generally, “a defendant must raise 
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 4 2018 UT App 203

the sufficiency of the evidence by proper motion or objection to 

preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 16, 

10 P.3d 346. Because Holland did not challenge the sufficiency of 

the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict below, she must 

establish an exception to the preservation rule. See State v. 

Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶¶ 18–19, 416 P.3d 443 (recognizing “three 

distinct exceptions to preservation: plain error, ineffective 

assistance of counsel, and exceptional circumstances,” and 

explaining that “[w]hen an issue is not preserved . . . [the] party 

seek[ing] to raise it on appeal . . . must establish the applicability 

of one of these exceptions”). As Holland acknowledges, she has 

not done so. Accordingly, we do not reach those issues.

¶9 But the third element—whether Holland was an unlawful 

user of a controlled substance—was tried to the bench. Unlike 

challenges to a jury verdict, a defendant need not file a separate 

motion or make a separate objection to challenge the sufficiency 

of the evidence supporting the court’s factual findings in a bench 

trial. See State v. Larsen, 2000 UT App 106, ¶ 9 n.4, 999 P.2d 1252; 

see also Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3). Accordingly, this issue was 

preserved for our review. “When reviewing a bench trial for 

sufficiency of the evidence, we must sustain the [district] court’s 

judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or 

if we otherwise reach a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made.” State v. Bingham, 2015 UT App 103, ¶ 8, 

348 P.3d 730 (quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

¶10 Holland contends that the State failed to present sufficient 

evidence to convict her of possession of a dangerous weapon by 

a restricted person. To convict on this charge, the State was 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Holland 

intentionally or knowingly possessed a dangerous weapon and 

that she was a Category II restricted person, which includes “an 
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 5 2018 UT App 203

unlawful user of a controlled substance.” Utah Code Ann. 

§ 76-10-503(1)(b)(iii), (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2017). As explained 

above, see supra ¶ 8, Holland did not preserve her challenge to 

the jury’s findings that the brass knuckles constituted a 

dangerous weapon or that she was intentionally or knowingly in 

possession of that weapon. Therefore, we consider only whether 

there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s 

finding that Holland was a restricted person based on her status 

as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Holland argues 

that the State failed to satisfy this element because “there was no 

evidence proving that [she] used a controlled substance with any 

regularity or even proximate to her alleged possession of a 

dangerous weapon.”

¶11 Although the statute does not define “unlawful user,” the 

Utah Supreme Court recently interpreted the term in State v. 

Garcia, 2017 UT 53, 424 P.3d 171. In Garcia, the defendant argued 

that the term “unlawful user” should be narrowly construed to 

require “a person to be actually using a controlled substance at 

the time he or she is in possession of the [dangerous weapon].” 

Id. ¶¶ 58–59 (quotation simplified). Our supreme court explicitly 

rejected that interpretation, reasoning that the relevant statute 

“does not forbid possession of a firearm while unlawfully using 

a controlled substance[,]” but it “prohibits unlawful users of 

controlled substances from possessing firearms.” Id. ¶ 60

(quotation simplified). The court instead defined “unlawful 

user” as someone who “use[s] with regularity and in a time 

period reasonably contemporaneous with the possession of a 

firearm.” Id. ¶ 61. Under this definition, the court determined 

that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that 

the defendant was indeed an unlawful user. Id. ¶ 65. The 

evidence against the defendant consisted of his admissions to 

police that he began using cocaine in 2006 and that he does “a lot 

of cocaine like sometimes” because he gets “real paranoid” when 

he is off it. Id. ¶ 12. When an officer expressed surprise that he 
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 6 2018 UT App 203

would both use and deal drugs, the defendant responded, “[I]t’s 

just my heart and soul is into this shit man[.]” Id.

¶12 Similarly, Holland’s statements support the district 

court’s finding that she was an “unlawful user.” Holland 

admitted to the officer that she had a drug addiction, suggesting 

that she used a controlled substance with some regularity. She 

also stated that she “is a drug user” and was having problems 

with her addiction. Much like the statements in Garcia, Holland’s 

references to her drug use were phrased in the present tense, 

supporting the district court’s finding that Holland’s drug use 

was current and ongoing.

¶13 Under Garcia, Holland’s admissions alone would be 

sufficient to support a finding that she used drugs “with 

regularity and in a time period reasonably contemporaneous 

with the possession of a firearm.” See id. ¶ 61. But here, the 

district court heard additional evidence to bolster the conclusion 

that Holland was a current drug user. At the time of her arrest, 

Holland was carrying a black kit containing a pick commonly 

used for drugs and two spoons covered with brown residue.

This evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Holland was in 

possession of drug paraphernalia at the time of her arrest. As the 

district court recognized, the fact that Holland carried drug 

paraphernalia was further evidence that her drug use was

ongoing and reasonably contemporaneous to her possession of a 

dangerous weapon. In addition, the arresting officer testified 

that, based on “the way she looked that day” and her 

“demeanor,” Holland “appear[ed] to be currently struggling” 

with drug addiction. Given Holland’s own statements, her 

contemporaneous possession of drug paraphernalia, and the 

arresting officer’s observations, the evidence was sufficient to 

support the district court’s finding that Holland was an unlawful 

user of a controlled substance prohibited from possessing a 

dangerous weapon.
State v. Holland

20170018-CA 7 2018 UT App 203

CONCLUSION

¶14 We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the 

district court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Holland 

was an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Accordingly, we 

affirm her conviction for possession of a dangerous weapon by a 

restricted person.