State v. Sorbonne

462 P.3d 409

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Robert Lynn SORBONNE, Appellant.

No. 20190013-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed March 26, 2020

Opinion

HAGEN, Judge:

¶1 Following a heated argument with his father, nineteen-year-old Robert Lynn Sorbonne got into a car with his younger sister and drove away from their father’s property. Shortly thereafter, the father chased them down in his own vehicle and cut them off on the road, forcing them to stop. When the father exited his vehicle and attempted to approach Sorbonne’s car, Sorbonne pointed a gun at his father and threatened to kill him. Based on that event, the State charged Sorbonne with one count of threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel, a class A misdemeanor. At his bench trial, Sorbonne claimed self-defense, arguing that his father had a history of violence and that Sorbonne reasonably feared for his and his sister’s safety when he pulled the gun. The district court found Sorbonne guilty.

¶2 On appeal, Sorbonne contends that his conviction should be reversed because the district court erred by (1) applying the self-defense standard for "using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury" rather than the standard for "threatening or using" non-deadly force, (2) excluding evidence of the father’s prior violent and abusive acts, and (3) misapplying the reasonableness standard contained in Utah’s self-defense statute. We reject his arguments and affirm.

BACKGROUND¹

The Prosecution’s Version of Events

¶3 Sorbonne’s family was "under a lot of stress" on the morning of June 20, 2018, as a result of his mother leaving his father and requesting a divorce the previous night. After Sorbonne woke up, he asked his father where his mother was. When his father told him that she "left and wanted a divorce," a heated argument ensued. They began yelling at each other, and Sorbonne blamed his father for "screw[ing] up" and causing his mother to leave. Sorbonne was also angry because they had "done so much work on the[ir] ranch and [they] all wanted to get it finished," and, apparently, the mother leaving threw a wrench in those plans.

¶4 Afterward, Sorbonne and his younger sister, who witnessed the argument, told their father that they were leaving to go to Salt Lake City, Utah. This news upset the father, who still wanted his children’s help with some work to be done on the ranch. After his children left the house, the father "stomped" on and broke a chair in anger.

¶5 Sorbonne and his sister got in a car and drove down a dirt road that led off the property. About one minute after they left, the father decided that he "was going to catch up with [Sorbonne] and apologize." The father hopped into his own vehicle and caught up with Sorbonne’s car about a mile away from the house. The father pulled ahead of Sorbonne’s car at about thirty-five miles per hour and with about five feet separating the sides of the two vehicles. Then the father "skidded to a stop" in front of Sorbonne’s vehicle, forcing Sorbonne to stop as well but leaving enough space on the side of the road that Sorbonne could have driven around if he wanted.

¶6 The father climbed out of his vehicle, held his "arms out to the left and right," and told Sorbonne that he "was sorry and that [he] needed his help." Sorbonne got out of his car as the father approached. When the father was about eight feet away, Sorbonne opened the rear door of his car, retrieved a handgun, chambered a round, pointed the gun at his father, and said, "I’m going to fuckin’ kill you."

¶7 The father told Sorbonne that "he was making a really big mistake and that he’s gonna go to jail" and asked him to put the gun down. Sorbonne asked his younger sister to call the police, but his father told him that he did not "want to involve the police" because Sorbonne would end up "going to ... jail." The sister fumbled with her phone in the car, and the father volunteered to call the police himself. The father put the police on speaker phone and then retreated from the scene because he feared that he "was going to get shot."

¶8 Sorbonne resumed driving but soon encountered a police roadblock and peacefully surrendered himself into custody. The State then charged Sorbonne with one count of threatening with or using a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel.

The Defense’s Theory at Trial

¶9 At his bench trial, Sorbonne argued that he was acting in self-defense and presented a different version of the foregoing events to back up that claim. According to Sorbonne and his younger sister, their father displayed multiple instances of erratic and angry behavior that day, causing them to fear that their father meant them harm when he cut them off on the road as they attempted to leave the property.

¶10 In further support of his self-defense theory at trial, Sorbonne presented evidence of his father’s prior violent and abusive acts to "show the reasonableness of [Sorbonne’s] fear which justified his threat of force." Much of this evidence was admitted, but some pieces were excluded.

¶11 The father himself admitted to multiple facts indicating that he had a violent character, including that (1) the mother obtained a protective order against him during their divorce proceedings; (2) he and the mother were "both abusive" to each other; (3) he sprayed starter fluid in the mother’s eyes; (4) he spanked all his children until they were six or seven years old; (5) he punched the mother in the shoulder eleven years earlier; and (6) he once fought with Sorbonne and, while they were "wrestling," Sorbonne’s head was smashed through a cupboard and Sorbonne’s grandmother was knocked to the ground. However, the father categorically denied ever abusing any of his children.² All these admissions and denials were admitted into evidence.

¶12 In addition to the father’s admissions, the defense sought to introduce further evidence of the father’s prior violent acts. Sorbonne’s grandmother testified that there were "[m]any times" that the father was involved in road rage incidents. However, the district court struck that testimony after an objection from the prosecutor.

¶13 Sorbonne’s younger sister testified that she had spoken to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). However, when trial counsel asked her if DCFS ever made "supported findings" that her father had abused her, the prosecutor made a hearsay objection. After some back and forth between the prosecutor and trial counsel, the district court expressed uncertainty about "what a DCFS-supported finding is." As the district court continued to discuss its uncertainty, trial counsel interjected, "Yeah. All right. No further questions. Thank you."

¶14 Sorbonne’s older sister, who was not present during the events leading to Sorbonne’s arrest, also testified. Trial counsel asked her, "Has [your father] ever hit you or put his hand around your throat or anything like that?" The older sister responded, "Yes." The prosecutor objected on the basis of relevance. Trial counsel responded that it was relevant because it demonstrated that the father had a "pattern" of violent or abusive conduct. The district court sustained the objection, ruling that the testimony was "not admissible under the Rules of Evidence."

¶15 The district court determined that Sorbonne’s actions were not justified by self-defense and found Sorbonne guilty as charged.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶16 Sorbonne raises three issues on appeal.³ First, he argues that the district court erroneously concluded that pointing a gun is a use of deadly force rather than a threat of force under Utah’s self-defense statute. According to Sorbonne, that error led the district court to incorrectly apply a heightened reasonableness standard to justify the use of deadly force when a lower standard should have been applied. "The proper interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law reviewed for correctness." State v. Robertson , 2017 UT 27, ¶ 14, 438 P.3d 491 (cleaned up).

¶17 Second, Sorbonne argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony concerning the father’s prior violent and abusive acts. A district court’s decision to admit or exclude testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Perea , 2013 UT 68, ¶ 31, 322 P.3d 624.

¶18 Third, Sorbonne argues that the district court erred by applying an objective reasonableness standard under the self-defense statute, contending that the district court should have instead applied a "modified objective standard or a subjective standard." Again, "the proper interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law reviewed for correctness." Robertson , 2017 UT 27, ¶ 14, 438 P.3d 491 (cleaned up).

ANALYSIS

I. Self-Defense Standard

¶19 Utah’s self-defense statute provides two standards to determine whether a person’s act of self-defense is justified. The level of justified force that may be used in self-defense depends on the degree of danger that the defendant reasonably believed he or she was facing. The first standard provides that an "individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force." Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-402(2)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019).⁴ The second standard provides in relevant part that an "individual is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the individual or another individual as a result of imminent use of unlawful force." Id. § 76-2-402(2)(b). In other words, a person is justified in using deadly force only if defending him- or herself against an equally serious threat of harm.

¶20 In this case, where Sorbonne held his father at gunpoint, there was...