Opinion ID: 2543450
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Close Relationship in Time

Text: ¶ 15 The trial court stated in its memorandum decision that defendant does not argue against the temporal proximity of the murder of Benzon and the attempted murder of Majnik. Defendant acknowledges in his appeal to this court that he did not make an argument regarding the relationship in time of the two incidents to the trial court. Yet, without arguing the existence of exceptional circumstances, he has now argued for the first time that these two incidents are not closely related in time for purposes of the Alvarez definition. We will not decide this question. See State v. Pledger, 896 P.2d 1226, 1229 n. 5 (Utah 1995) (declining to reach issue defendant did not raise in motion to quash bindover, where defendant did not argue the existence of exceptional circumstances on appeal). Even if we were to address the substance of defendant's newly-minted argument, it is a non-starter. The murder and attempted murder occurred within five to ten minutes of each other, clearly demonstrating a close temporal connection. See Alvarez, 872 P.2d at 459 (holding two murders committed during five minutes of fighting were closely related for section 76-5-202(b)(1) purposes); see also State v. Valdez, 748 P.2d 1050, 1052, 1054 (Utah 1987) (holding that two homicides committed within approximately an hour-and-a-half period of time could satisfy section 76-5-202(1)(b)).