Opinion ID: 3006521
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Five Questions

Text: ¶ 50 The prosecutor first asked Mr. Rettig five related questions that all focused on the planning and initial stages of the crime: Question 1 “Isn’t it true that you’ve told the police that the reason you were meeting up with [Mr.] Bond is because you and him had talked about going to a man’s house and taking some guns the day before, November 15, 2009?” Question 2 “Isn’t it true that you told the police that [Mr. Bond] had actually approached you the day 22 STATE v. BOND Opinion of the Court before and talked about going to some guy’s house in Payson and stealing some guns?” Question 3 “Okay, so the question is, isn’t it true that you told the police that you drove from Vernal to Payson, that you stopped at Walmart and bought some zip ties and latex gloves and some hoodies with Mr. Bond?” Question 4 “Isn’t it true that you told the police that you went up to Kay Mortensen’s house and [Mr. Bond] told you to stay in the car while he went and knocked on the door?” Question 5 “Isn’t it true that you actually entered the house at the direction of [Mr. Bond] with the gun and you helped zip tie Kay Mortensen? Isn’t that true, isn’t that true that you told the police?” ¶ 51 Together, these questions imply that Mr. Bond took the lead in the early stages of the robbery. They suggest that Mr. Bond originated the idea of robbing Mr. Mortensen, directed Mr. Rettig to remain in the car when they arrived, knocked on the door, and prompted Mr. Rettig to enter the home. But many of these factual assertions were established by other evidence already presented to the jury by the State. For example, in a recorded interview with police, Mr. Bond explained that he and Mr. Rettig had planned to travel to Mr. Mortensen’s home to steal his guns and that they met up for that purpose on the day of the murder. Mr. Bond’s ex-wife also testified that Mr. Bond told her he drove with Mr. Rettig to Payson to rob Mr. Mortensen. Additionally, the State had presented evidence that Mr. Bond brought zip ties and latex gloves to Mr. Mortensen’s home on the night of the murder. Likewise, the State established through earlier evidence that Mr. Rettig held the gun as they entered the home and helped to zip-tie Mr. Mortensen. ¶ 52 More importantly, however, none of the first five questions directly contradicts or undermines Mr. Bond’s compulsion defense. When the pair entered Mr. Mortensen’s home, Mr. Bond and Mr. Rettig were carrying out a mutually agreed upon plan to rob him of his guns. According to Mr. Bond’s theory of the case, the plan went awry when Mr. Rettig forced him to kill Mr. Mortensen at gunpoint. And Mr. Rettig’s alleged 23 Cite as: 2015 UT 88 Opinion of the Court compulsion did not occur until well after the pair exited the car and entered the home. Thus, any implication that Mr. Bond took the lead in the early stages of the robbery did not foreclose the possibility that Mr. Rettig changed course and later forced Mr. Bond at gunpoint to kill Mr. Mortensen. In other words, even if Mr. Bond directed the early stages of the robbery, his compulsion defense remained intact. We therefore conclude that these initial questions were unlikely to undermine Mr. Bond’s defense or affect the outcome of the trial.