State v. Peterson

462 P.3d 421

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Timothy James PETERSON, Appellant.

No. 20180550-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed March 26, 2020

Emily Adams, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Christopher D. Ballard, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Kate Appleby concurred.

Opinion

MORTENSEN, Judge:

¶1 Timothy James Peterson was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and failure to stop at a law enforcement officer's command after he repeatedly struck his wife throughout an hours-long car ride, prevented her from escaping, and fled when an officer intervened. Peterson challenges his conviction for aggravated kidnapping with a claim of insufficient evidence and his conviction for aggravated assault with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm both convictions.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In September 2017, Peterson and his wife (Wife) were separated but remained married. One evening, in hopes of reconciling, Wife accompanied Peterson to a recording studio in Salt Lake City. Both Peterson and Wife drank alcohol at the studio, even though Wife was on probation and was not permitted to imbibe. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., Peterson became angry with Wife and told her to get in his car, which she willingly did. As Peterson drove away, he struck Wife in the head multiple times. The car slowed as it reached an overpass and Wife exited the car and attempted to walk away. Peterson pulled the car next to her and "convinced" her to get back in the car by threatening her, telling her to "get back in the car before this becomes a scene," and "physically pushing [her] back into the car." Wife testified that she was frantic and that a couple thoughts occurred to her: she wanted to avoid law enforcement because she had been drinking, and she knew that she "couldn't run or [Peterson would] probably still try to get [her] back in the car." Wife testified that Peterson "forced [her] back into the car."

¶3 Peterson resumed driving and hitting Wife. Wife told Peterson to stop hitting her, pleaded with him to stop hitting her, and even offered to have sex with him if he would stop hitting her. At one point, while Peterson drove on the freeway at 75 miles per hour, Wife, in her drunken desperation, attempted to throw herself from the car to escape. Peterson grabbed her by the neck and arm to hold her in the car. Peterson forced Wife to stay in the car for hours and endure the beatings until they arrived at a park in Bluffdale at around 3:00 a.m. Wife was in and out of consciousness during the ordeal. On arriving at the park, Peterson "pulled [Wife] out of the car," forced her over to a water fountain, and told her to "clean [her]self up."

¶4 Later, an officer noticed Peterson's vehicle at the park. The officer saw Peterson just inside the car at the rear passenger-side door, punching something in the back seat. The officer called to Peterson, who glanced back at the officer and then returned his attention to the back seat of the car. The officer again called out to Peterson, instructing Peterson to turn and face him. As Peterson turned to look at the officer, Wife scrambled out of the rear driver-side door of the car, "stumbling and screaming for [the officer] to save her." Wife ran to the officer's vehicle and attempted to get in, all the while crying, "Help me; save me." Peterson began walking to the front of his car. The officer commanded Peterson, "Don't move; don't go." Peterson then fled on foot from the officer. The officer attempted to pursue Peterson but lost sight of him. The officer returned to the vehicles to tend to Wife and observed she was "disfigured. ... Her head was misshapen," she was covered in both dried and fresh blood, "she was bleeding from her nose, her eyes, her ears. ... Her clothing was saturated in blood ... everything was just covered in blood."

¶5 Wife was taken to the emergency room and treated for her injuries. The emergency-room physician found that twelve of Wife's teeth were shattered, that she sustained fractures to her nasal bone, that she had a splayed lip, and that she suffered a concussion. Wife later reported also having a shattered bone behind one ear, with 85% hearing loss in that ear, as well as two black eyes, a fractured skull, five broken ribs, a lot of bruising, scratch marks, and persistent vision problems.

¶6 Peterson was arrested a few days after the incident and charged with one count each of the following offenses: Aggravated Kidnapping—Domestic Violence related; Aggravated Assault Serious Bodily Injury—Domestic Violence related; Mayhem; and Failure to Stop at the Command of a Law Enforcement Officer. At trial, after the State rested, Peterson moved for a directed verdict on the aggravated kidnapping charge, arguing that Wife was willingly in the car. The court denied the motion. The jury convicted Peterson on the aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and failure to stop charges.

¶7 After trial, Peterson moved to merge the aggravated kidnapping charge into the aggravated assault charge under the then-available common-law merger doctrine. The court denied the motion and sentenced Peterson to concurrent terms of fifteen years to life for the aggravated kidnapping, one to fifteen years for the aggravated assault,¹ and up to one year on the failure to stop conviction. Peterson appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶8 Peterson raises two issues on appeal.² First, Peterson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the aggravated kidnapping charge. "We will uphold a trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Gonzalez , 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27, 345 P.3d 1168 (cleaned up).

¶9 Second, Peterson argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance with regard to the motion to merge the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault offenses. "An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law," which we review for correctness. State v. Ott , 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16, 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up).

ANALYSIS

I. Insufficient Evidence

¶10 Peterson challenges his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove the element that requires the detention or restraint be against the will of the victim. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-302(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019) (aggravated kidnapping requires either unlawful detention or kidnapping); see also id. § 76-5-304(1) (unlawful detention requires action against will of victim); id. § 76-5-301(1) (2017) (kidnapping requires same).³ Peterson therefore must "show that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, no evidence existed from which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt" that Wife's detention or restraint was against her will. See State v. Gonzalez , 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27, 345 P.3d 1168 ; see also Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-301(1), -304(1). Peterson does not satisfy this burden.

¶11 An unlawful detention or kidnapping begins the instant a defendant detains or restrains a victim "against the will of the victim." State v. Couch , 635 P.2d 89, 93 (Utah 1981). Evidence that a detention or restraint is against the will of a victim may derive from verbal expressions of disapproval or actions taken to resist the detention or restraint. See id. (holding detention was against will of victim because victim verbally expressed desire for defendant to stop the car); see also State v. Kirby , 2016 UT App 193, ¶¶ 19–21, 382 P.3d 644 (observing victim was unlawfully detained based, in part, on her attempt to retrieve her suitcase and leave). Additionally, the facts and circumstances particular to a detention or restraint may provide evidence of a victim's state of mind. See Kirby , 2016 UT App 193, ¶ 19, 382 P.3d 644 (observing that despite the victim's unavailed opportunities to escape, the unlawful detention was ongoing because defendant instructed her not to leave and had previously beaten her for attempting to leave).

¶12 Peterson contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the aggravated kidnapping charge. He asserts that Wife willingly got into his car at the studio, that Wife willingly re-entered the car at the overpass, that he was just keeping Wife safe when he acted to prevent her from jumping from his car on the freeway, and that he merely "asked" Wife to clean herself up at the water fountain. Peterson's characterization of the events is unavailing.

¶13 First, there is evidence that Wife was detained against her will when she was forced to re-enter the car at the overpass. Wife manifested her desire to be free from Peterson's detention in the car by exiting the slow-moving car as it approached the overpass. Peterson had to physically push and threaten her to get her to re-enter the car. Although it is true that Wife re-entered the car, at least partially, by operation of her own motor function, she did not do so willingly. Peterson previously hit Wife and alluded to the trouble she would face if they encountered law enforcement while she had alcohol in her system. Wife was given the ultimatums of being beaten until she complied, causing a scene and being arrested, or complying by returning to the car. Wife's choice among Peterson's ultimatums does not make her a willing participant in the decision. Peterson could have allowed Wife to walk away; he did not do so, and her forced decision that followed does not indicate that she re-entered the car volitionally. Based on the facts and circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that...