Opinion ID: 2631878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of defendant's statements and physical evidence

Text: ¶ 17 Next, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error in admitting defendant's statements to Detective Forbes because the statements were taken in violation of defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and because the statements were inadmissible hearsay based on the fact defendant made his statements to the detective through an interpreter. Defendant also argues that the trial court committed plain error in admitting the key ring and the fingerprints. ¶ 18 To demonstrate plain error, defendant must establish the following: (i) An error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.... State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993). In order to show that the error is harmful, defendant must demonstrate that 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. Id. at 1208-09. We are not persuaded that, had defendant's statements to Detective Forbes, the key ring, and the fingerprints been excluded, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for defendant. As previously explained, the jury was presented with the testimony of Martinez, which was enough for the jury to convict defendant. Therefore, even if defendant could meet the first two prongs of the plain error test, demonstrating (1) that the trial court erroneously admitted defendant's statements, the key ring, and the fingerprints; and (2) that these errors should have been obvious to the trial court, defendant cannot meet the third requirement because he has not shown how the admission of this evidence was sufficiently harmful. [2]