Opinion ID: 2632249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: preservation of an insufficient evidence claim

Text: ¶ 11 As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal. See State v. Marvin, 964 P.2d 313, 318 (Utah 1998). The preservation rule serves two important policies. First, in the interest of orderly procedure, the trial court ought to be given an opportunity to address a claimed error and, if appropriate, correct it. State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29, 36 (Utah 1989). Second, a defendant should not be permitted to forego making an objection with the strategy of enhanc[ing] the defendant's chances of acquittal and then, if that strategy fails, ... claim[ing] on appeal that the Court should reverse. State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 159 (Utah 1989). To serve these policies, we have held that the preservation rule applies to every claim, including constitutional questions, unless a defendant can demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist or plain error occurred. See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996); State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994). ¶12 We have stated that the exceptional circumstances exception is ill-defined and applies primarily to rare procedural anomalies. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1209 n. 3 (Utah 1993). Holgate fails to point out any procedural anomalies or other exceptional circumstances that might justify his failure to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence in the instant case. We thus turn to his claim of plain error. ¶ 13 The plain error exception enables the appellate court to balance the need for procedural regularity with the demands of fairness. State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 122 n. 12 (Utah 1989). At bottom, the plain error rule's purpose is to permit us to avoid injustice. Eldredge, 773 P.2d at 35 n. 8. To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined. Dunn, 850 P.2d at 1208-09. ¶ 14 As a general rule, to ensure that the trial court addresses the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must request that the court do so. The Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure state that when a defendant moves the court to arrest judgment on the basis of insufficient evidence, the directive is mandatory in that the court shall[] arrest judgment if the facts proved or admitted do not constitute a public offense. Utah R.Crim. P. 23. In contrast, when a defendant fails to make such a motion, the directive is permissive, providing that the trial court may arrest judgment. See id.; see also Utah R.Crim. P. 17( o ) ([T]he court may issue an order dismissing any information or indictment ... upon the ground that the evidence is not legally sufficient to establish the offense charged .... (emphasis added)); Utah R.Crim. P. 24(a) (The court may, upon motion of a party or upon its own initiative, grant a new trial in the interest of justice if there is any error or impropriety which had a substantial adverse effect upon the rights of a party. (emphasis added)). [4] ¶ 15 However, even when a defendant fails to move the court for relief based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's discretion is not unlimited. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides, When it appears to the court that there is not sufficient evidence to put a defendant to his defense, it shall forthwith order him discharged. Utah Code Ann. § 77-17-3 (1999). Thus, under this provision, the trial court shall grant relief when the evidence is insufficient, even if a defendant fails to properly raise the issue, but only when the evidentiary defect is apparent to the trial court. Id. ¶ 16 Reading section 77-17-3 in conjunction with the rules of criminal procedure that govern the trial court's responsibility to grant relief based on the sufficiency of the evidence, it is clear that as a general rule, a defendant must raise the sufficiency of the evidence by proper motion or objection to preserve the issue for appeal. This rule serves the two policies on which the preservation rule is based. First, as the trial court has no duty under statute or rule to examine the sufficiency of the evidence unless the defendant moves the court to do so or there is an apparent insufficiency, the preservation rule ensures that the issue will be brought to the trial court's attention and the trial court will have the opportunity to address the issue. See Eldredge, 773 P.2d at 36. Second, a general rule that preservation is necessary in this context would prevent a defendant from deliberately foregoing relief below based on the sufficiency of the evidence, hoping that a remediable evidentiary defect might not be perceived and corrected, thus strategically facilitating the defendant's chance for a reversal on appeal. See State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 159 (Utah 1989). ¶ 17 Having thus concluded that preservation is necessary as a general rule, we must determine under what circumstances it would be plain error for the trial court not to discharge a defendant on the basis of insufficient evidence. Section 77-17-3 states that when the evidentiary defect is apparent to the trial court, the court shall discharge the defendant. It necessarily follows that the trial court plainly errs if it submits the case to the jury and thus fails to discharge a defendant when the insufficiency of the evidence is apparent to the court. While it is difficult for the court on appeal to dictate when an evidentiary defect was apparent to the trial court, there is a certain point at which an evidentiary insufficiency is so obvious and fundamental that it would be plain error for the trial court not to discharge the defendant. An example is the case in which the State presents no evidence to support an essential element of a criminal charge. The plain error exception would serve to avoid a manifest injustice in such a case. Thus, to establish plain error, a defendant must demonstrate first that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of the crime charged and second that the insufficiency was so obvious and fundamental that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury. [5]