Court Opinion

ID: 9794650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:09:07.766293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:20.664218
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The decision of the majority to reverse the judgment of the trial court on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence is premised upon its own narrow factual conclusion that Officer Mangelson “admitted under cross-examination that he did not see that [Main Street] shot being fired.” However, a review of Mangelson’s testimony does not mandate such a conclusion. In fact, his testimony reasonably supports the contrary conclusion as reached by the trial court.
The scope of this Court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence to convict is as was most recently expounded in State v. Petree:1
[W]e review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury. We reverse a jury conviction for insufficient evidence only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted. State v. Kerekes, Utah, 622 P.2d 1161, 1168 (1980); State v. Lamm, Utah, 606 P.2d 229, 231 (1980); State v. Gorlick, Utah, 605 P.2d 761, 762 (1979); State v. Daniels, Utah, 584 P.2d 880, 882-83 (1978); State v. Romero, Utah, 554 P.2d 216, 219 (1976).
Mangelson’s testimony on direct examination was as follows:
*1328Q (BY MR. EYRE) Okay. After you arrived at that particular [Main Street] location, could you describe for the court what then occurred?
A I gave my location on the radio to the dispatcher, and I told the other officers on the radio where I was, and where he was. And I got out of my patrol car. I knelt down behind some boxes and stuff that was there, and I drew my service revolver. And just as he got to the railing right here, I hollered at him to stop— throw the rifle down and lay down on the lawn there off the sidewalk.
Q Can you recall your exact words that you yelled at him?
A Well, that is pretty close. I said, “Stop. Throw the rifle down and lay down on the grass.”
Q And what was his response?
A He fired another shot at me.
Q Did you observe him firing it?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you observe?
A I observed him put the rifle to his shoulder and a shot go off. [Emphasis added.]
Q And what is the distance across that road from where he was to where you were located?
A That distance is 236 feet.
THE COURT: And he missed you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q (BY MR. EYRE) Did you observe where that round hit?
A I did not observe where that round hit.

Q (BY MR. EYRE) Could you show the court where, exactly, he was standing?
A He was standing right against this wall here.
*: * ⅞: * * ⅜
Q (BY MR. EYRE) After he had fired that round, what then occurred?
A I returned two rounds. I shot two rounds at him.

Q (BY MR.- EYRE) After you had fired those two rounds, what then occurred?
A At that point Mr. Castonguay just backed up against the wall like this — had his back right against the wall and he didn’t move. He just stayed there.
I got back on the radio. I told the other officers where he was and that he was just backed up there against the wall.
Q Okay. And were those other officers in this area by that time?
A Yes, they were.
Q Describe what you observed from that point on?
A Okay. He was — he had his back right to the wall here, just a couple of feet back from the sidewalk. Deputy Carter and City Police Officer Epperson were coming up this side of the courthouse, and they were about to the front at this time. They had a walkie-talkie.
I told them he was backed up against the wall here. I remained where I was. And Deputy Carter came around the front here, told him to throw the rifle down, and at that time he did.
He dropped the rifle, and they took him into custody right there.
Q And you observed the arrest?
A Yes.
Q And you were still located on the other side of Main Street?
A Yes. When I started down across the street, he was down on the ground, and they had him handcuffed.
⅜: ⅜: ⅜: ⅜ * ⅜
Subsequently, on cross-examination, Man-gelson testified:
Q And you didn’t see the defendant’s weapon that night, at that time, did you, prior to any shots being taken?
THE COURT: Now, do you understand what that question is?
You better read that back, Mrs. Worth-en.
(Whereupon, the last question propounded to the witness was read back by the reporter.)
*1329THE COURT: Could you understand that question?
THE WITNESS: Are you asking me if I saw him with the weapon before he shot?
Q (BY MR. ST ANGER) At the time that he was at Chapman’s store by the courthouse, right on this corner.
A Are you talking about across this way, or across this way?
Q Right about Chapman’s store.
A Well, the answer to that is no, I didn’t see the weapon.
Q What did you see?
A I saw Mr. Catsonguay [sic] coming up through the grassy area out here, and he was still packing the rifle.
Q Is that all you observed?
A Well — is that all I observed?
Q Yes.
A I think so. [Emphasis added.]
The foregoing cross-examination did little to further enlighten the court or to clarify the testimony given on direct. Furthermore, only under a strained interpretation thereof can it be said that the cross-examination either detracts from or contradicts the earlier testimony. This is to be seen in that the question which evolved the response from Mangelson that “I didn’t see the weapon” was obviously confusing, if not wholly misunderstood. The question inquired not whether Mangelson saw the defendant aim and fire the “Main Street shot,” but whether defendant’s weapon was seen “prior to any shots being taken.” This prompted the court to interject itself into the colloquy. Then defense counsel compounded the question by apparently (the record is unclear) drawing Mangelson’s attention to an unidentified exhibit, drawing or sketch. A further colloquy then ensued as to the time and place of the event to which defense counsel’s question was directed.
Whatever might be said of the weight to be given to Mangelson’s response that “I didn’t see the weapon,” his answer to the very next question propounded to him would appear to neutralize his preceding answer:
Q What did you see?
A I saw Mr. Catsonguay [sic] coming up through the grassy area out there, and he was still packing his rifle. [Emphasis added.]
In all fairness, and in all due respect to the witness, when asked the broad question, “Is that all you observed,” and he responded in the affirmative, it is not to be said that his response amounted to a contradiction of his testimony on direct that he saw the defendant put the rifle to his shoulder and fire the “Main Street shot” at him.
I would affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

. Utah, 659 P.2d 443 (1983).