Utah Court of Appeals
Can a defendant cover facial tattoos during trial in Utah? State v. Ortiz Explained
Summary
Daniel Martinez Ortiz appealed his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to cover his facial tattoos during trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that visible tattoos not used as evidence are not subject to evidentiary rules governing admissibility.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Daniel Martinez Ortiz was convicted of aggravated robbery and appealed, arguing that the trial court unfairly prejudiced him by denying his motion for permission to cover his facial tattoos at trial. Ortiz contended that his visible tattoos violated Utah Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 because they were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether a defendant’s visible facial tattoos constitute evidence subject to the Utah Rules of Evidence when they are not specifically referenced or used as evidence at trial. Ortiz argued that the tattoos should be treated like inadmissible evidence under rules governing relevance and unfair prejudice.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals distinguished this case from federal decisions where defendants’ tattoos were actually admitted and referenced as evidence. Here, neither the State nor any witnesses referred to Ortiz’s tattoos or their meaning, and no evidence drew the tattoos to the jury’s attention. The court held that tattoos merely visible as part of a defendant’s general appearance do not constitute evidence and are therefore not subject to evidentiary limitations. The court rejected comparisons to prison garb or handcuffs, noting that tattoos are voluntarily acquired and part of regular appearance, and that jurors confirmed the tattoos would not affect their impartiality.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that visible defendant characteristics like tattoos are not automatically subject to evidentiary rules unless they are specifically used as evidence. Defense attorneys should focus on whether such characteristics constitute actual evidence referenced at trial rather than arguing that general evidentiary rules apply to a defendant’s appearance. The ruling also suggests that defense counsel may even use distinctive features to their advantage by arguing that witnesses’ failure to mention them undermines identification credibility.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Ortiz
Citation
2013 UT App 100
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120198-CA
Date Decided
April 25, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant’s visible facial tattoos do not constitute evidence subject to the Utah Rules of Evidence when they are not referenced or used as evidence at trial, and therefore a trial court does not err in denying a motion to cover such tattoos.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for the evidentiary ruling
Practice Tip
When challenging visible defendant characteristics like tattoos, focus on whether they constitute actual evidence referenced at trial rather than arguing general evidentiary rules apply to a defendant’s appearance.
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.