Opinion ID: 1202216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Numbers.

Text: Throughout the transcript, it appears that the court reporter had particular difficulty in transcribing numbers. Therefore, there is often confusion concerning addresses, distances, and dates. Menzies claims that these errors prejudice his ability to raise claims concerning the admission of identification cards belonging to the victim, the identification of Menzies as a man seen near the location where the victim's body was found, sufficiency of the evidence to convict Menzies of robbery and kidnaping, and an unspecified claim regarding statements Menzies made to police officers. Each claim will be addressed separately. (i) Admission of identification cards. During the trial, the victim's social security card, found among Menzies' possessions, and three other identification cards belonging to the victim, found at the Salt Lake County jail, were admitted into evidence. Menzies objected at trial to the admission of all the cards. However, in his docketing statement he claims only that the court erred in the admission of the social security card on the ground that it contained inadmissible hearsay. In this appeal, he claims that discrepancies concerning dates and a stipulation prejudice his ability to pursue claims concerning the admission of these cards. At the time of the murder and prior to his arrest, Menzies was living with Nicole Arnold. After Menzies' arrest but before trial, Arnold met and married Rodney Duffy. When Duffy was moving Arnold's possessions into his house, he found the victim's social security card. He took the card to Arnold's mother, Janet Franks, who phoned the police. The police arrived and took possession of the card. This all occurred on the same day the card was found. At trial, the State called the victim's husband, who identified the social security card, Duffy, Franks, and the police officer who took possession of the card. In cross-examination of Franks, Menzies emphasized that Franks was confused as to the year she received the social security card. The discrepancy which Menzies claims prejudices his appeal occurred during this questioning. Menzies' counsel asked, WAS THE CARD GIVEN TO YOU SOMETIME IN 1986 [court reporter's notes read 1987], BEING SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, OR WAS IT GIVEN TO YOU IN 1987 [court reporter's notes read 1986], UP TO A YEAR AND SOME MONTHS AGO? This line of questioning continued until Franks stated that she had no idea what year she received the social security card. This discrepancy is not prejudicial. The context of the sentence itself establishes the correct dates. The transcript clearly contains the information the question was designed to elicit  that the witness did not remember what year she received the social security card. The police officer who took custody of the card testified that he received the card in 1986. Furthermore, the error does not relate to Menzies' claim that the card contains inadmissible hearsay. The discrepancy relating to the admission of the other identification cards is similarly insignificant. During Menzies' booking process, he suddenly broke away from the jailers and ran into a dressing room. He was alone in the dressing room for several seconds. Later that day, a jail employee, Jay Smith, found three identification cards belonging to the victim in a hamper in the dressing room. Not realizing the significance of the cards, Smith placed them in a drawer in the room. A few days later, a jailer, Officer Valdez, recovered the cards. At trial, the State called the jailers who booked Menzies into jail, Smith, and Valdez. Menzies' attorney asked Valdez how he was sure he found the cards after February 24, the date Menzies was booked into jail. Valdez testified that he could refer to his work schedule, particularly the type of duties which he performed, to help him remember the approximate date on which he recovered the cards. The discrepancy which Menzies claims prejudices his appeal occurred in the follow-up questions: Q. DID YOU WORK ON THE 26TH [court reporter's notes read 22nd] OF FEBRUARY? A. NO, MA'AM. Menzies claims that this discrepancy makes it impossible to determine if Valdez discovered the cards before or after Menzies was booked. However, given Valdez's testimony that he remembered the approximate date on which he found the cards by recalling the type of duties he performed that day, the exact dates on which Valdez did not work are not highly relevant. The transcript clearly establishes that Valdez testified that he found the card after the 24th. Smith testified that he found the card on the 24th. Furthermore, Menzies did not ask the trial judge not to admit the cards because Valdez found them before Menzies was booked. Nor was any such argument made to the jury. Finally, even assuming that a transcription error prejudices Menzies' ability to raise claims concerning the admission of the cards found at the jail, this should not result in a new trial. Given the strong evidence of guilt and the admission of the victim's other identification cards, any error in the admission of these cards would be harmless. Menzies' claims that a discrepancy in a stipulation as to how long the booking process lasted is prejudicial. He contends that a shorter booking process would establish that he did not have time to hide the cards in the hamper. However, no such argument was ever raised at trial. The testimony of several jailers established that Menzies was alone in the dressing room for a few seconds. The length of the booking process does not impact on the length of time Menzies was alone in the dressing room. In any event, it is clear from the transcript that the stipulation in question does not purport to establish what time the booking process was completed. (ii) Identification of Menzies. Tim Larabee was at Storm Mountain, where the victim's body was found, during the time the victim was missing and before her body was discovered. He testified that he twice saw a man and a woman walking together, heard a scream, and then saw the man leave alone. At trial, Larabee identified the man as Menzies. In the transcript, there is a discrepancy concerning whether Larabee first saw the man and the woman from a distance of twenty or fifty yards. However, this discrepancy is easily reconcilable. When asked the same question on cross-examination, Larabee stated that the distance was fifty yards. In any event, the distance from which Larabee first viewed the man is not particularly relevant. Larabee did not see the man's face until he saw the man for the third time. There is also a discrepancy concerning the date on which a composite drawing was prepared from Larabee's description. This discrepancy, however, is resolved by comparing the testimony of Larabee and the police officer who prepared the drawing. No motion was ever made to suppress the identification, and no claim concerning the identification was presented in Menzies' docketing statement. (iii) Insufficient evidence of kidnaping and robbery. At trial and in his docketing statement, Menzies maintains that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of kidnaping and robbery, the convictions used to elevate the homicide to first degree murder. Menzies claims that a discrepancy concerning the amount of money taken from the gas station prejudices this claim. However, the discrepancy did not occur in the testimony but rather in the State's closing argument. The prosecutor stated, THAT FINAL AUDIT DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $115 [court reporter's notes read $114] AND $116 MISSING.... AND IT WAS CERTAINLY A FIGURE REMARKABLY CLOSE TO THE $115 WHICH MR. DENTER TESTIFIED TO WHEN HE SAID HE REMOVED THAT AMOUNT CONCEALED IN AN UMBRELLA AT THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE. Because this discrepancy does not concern evidence but rather the prosecutor's closing argument and because there was confusion in the evidence concerning the exact amount of money at issue, this discrepancy is not prejudicial. (iv) Menzies' statement to the police. The State called Officer Thompson, who testified about an interview he had with Menzies concerning Menzies' whereabouts the night the victim disappeared. Thompson testified that Menzies told him that on the night in question, he picked up a woman who was hitchhiking. Menzies and the hitchhiker drove around for a while and talked, and then he took the hitchhiker to his house. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Arnold, Menzies' girlfriend, phoned from a trailer park and asked Menzies to take her home. Menzies and the hitchhiker picked up Arnold and returned to Menzies' house, where Arnold and the hitchhiker had a fight. Menzies and the hitchhiker left the house, drove around, and got stuck in the mud. The hitchhiker left Menzies at this point, and Menzies returned home to Arnold. Menzies claims that he is prejudiced by discrepancies in the date on which the interview took place, the location where he picked up the hitchhiker, and the location where the car got stuck in the mud. However, he does not identify what claim these discrepancies prejudice. Menzies did not object to the admission of this evidence. [56] In fact, during cross-examination, Menzies' counsel attempted to bolster Menzies' story. Given the fact that this evidence supported Menzies' case, an erroneous ruling admitting this evidence cannot be prejudicial. Furthermore, this evidence conflicts with other evidence which supports the jury's verdict. Therefore, an appellate court would not consider this evidence in ruling on an insufficient evidence claim. [57] Thus, no transcription error in this portion of the transcript could possibly prejudice Menzies' appeal. In any event, the relevant content of this testimony is preserved in the transcript. The exact date on which the interview took place is insignificant, and from the context of the testimony, it is clear that the interview took place between February 23 and February 29. On cross-examination, it was established that Menzies picked up the hitchhiker at a location near Mark's Lounge, a club where the victim had a membership. The location in which Menzies claims to have been stuck in the mud is of no consequence. The relevant information  that Menzies has an explanation for the mud found on and in the car  is in the transcript.