Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah recognize attempted depraved indifference murder? State v. Perez Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted murder after attacking a woman in her apartment with a knife. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could convict on attempted murder based on depraved indifference theory, and the State failed to properly notify defendant of expert witness testimony regarding fingerprint evidence.
Analysis
In State v. Perez, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah recognizes the crime of attempted depraved indifference murder and established important precedent regarding expert witness disclosure requirements in criminal cases.
Background and Facts
Defendant Juan Perez was charged with aggravated burglary and attempted murder after entering a victim’s apartment through a kitchen window and attacking her with a knife while she slept. The victim sustained cuts requiring stitches and various abrasions. Fingerprint evidence linked Perez to the crime scene. At trial, the court instructed the jury that it could convict Perez of attempted murder under a depraved indifference theory, over defense objection.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented several issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in instructing on attempted depraved indifference murder, (2) whether the State’s failure to provide proper notice of expert witness testimony violated discovery rules, and (3) whether the court properly considered sentencing factors for consecutive terms.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the attempted murder conviction, holding that the crime of attempted depraved indifference murder does not exist in Utah. Citing State v. Vigil, the court explained that attempted murder requires a knowing or intentional mental state with a conscious objective to cause death. Since depraved indifference falls short of that required intent, instructing the jury on this non-existent crime was prejudicial error. The court distinguished cases where intent to kill was clearly established from this case where the evidence could support multiple conclusions about the defendant’s mental state.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah practitioners must carefully scrutinize jury instructions in attempted murder cases to ensure they properly require proof of intent to kill. Additionally, the court’s analysis of discovery violations under Rule 16 and section 77-17-13 emphasizes the importance of timely objections to preserve appellate issues regarding expert witness disclosure.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Perez
Citation
2002 UT App 211
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 20000517-CA
Date Decided
June 20, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The crime of attempted depraved indifference murder does not exist in Utah because attempted murder requires a knowing or intentional mental state, and including such an instruction is prejudicial error when the evidence does not conclusively establish intent to kill.
Standard of Review
Clear abuse of discretion for trial court decisions on discovery violations and continuance requests; prejudicial error analysis for jury instruction claims; abuse of discretion standard for sentencing decisions
Practice Tip
Always object to attempted depraved indifference murder instructions and request proper expert witness disclosure under Rule 16 and section 77-17-13 in a timely manner to preserve appellate issues.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.