Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants obtain adverse inference instructions when police fail to activate body cameras? State v. Alvarado Explained
Summary
Anthony Alvarado was convicted of fleeing by vehicle and fleeing on foot after a police pursuit. He argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an adverse inference jury instruction due to the officer’s failure to activate his body-worn camera and for failing to object to jury instructions regarding mens rea elements.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Alvarado, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the significant issue of when defendants can obtain adverse inference jury instructions based on police officers’ failure to activate body-worn cameras during law enforcement encounters.
Background and Facts
During an April 2020 police pursuit in Roosevelt, Utah, a patrol officer observed a red pickup truck speeding and failing to stop when emergency lights were activated. The truck eventually stopped in a trailer park, and the driver fled on foot. Officers later arrested Anthony Alvarado, who matched the driver’s description. Critically, the patrol officer failed to activate his body-worn camera during the encounter, despite having time to do so when he activated his emergency lights.
At trial, the prosecution relied on the patrol officer’s testimony that he saw Alvarado exit from the driver’s side. However, Alvarado’s friend testified that she witnessed Alvarado exit from the passenger side, with an unknown person exiting from the driver’s side. Trial counsel did not request an adverse inference instruction regarding the officer’s failure to activate his body camera.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: whether Utah Code section 77-7a-104.1 (the Adverse Inference Statute) applied to trials occurring after its May 2020 effective date when the underlying police encounter occurred before that date, and whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request the adverse inference instruction.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court determined that the Adverse Inference Statute is procedural rather than substantive, meaning it regulates trial conduct rather than the underlying police encounter. Since the statute was effective at the time of Alvarado’s April 2021 trial, it applied regardless of when the police encounter occurred. The court found that competent counsel should have requested the instruction, particularly given that body-camera footage was crucial where the case hinged on conflicting witness testimony about who was driving.
Applying the factors in Utah Code section 77-7a-104.1(2)(b), the court concluded the trial court likely would have granted the instruction due to the materiality of the missing evidence and the weakness of the remaining evidence. The court reversed the fleeing by vehicle conviction but affirmed the fleeing on foot conviction, finding no prejudice regarding the jury instruction challenges on that charge.
Practice Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners defending cases involving police encounters where officers failed to activate body cameras. Defense attorneys should routinely examine whether officers complied with Utah Code section 77-7a-104 and request adverse inference instructions when appropriate. The court’s analysis demonstrates that such instructions can be particularly powerful in cases where witness credibility is central and missing video evidence would have been dispositive.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Alvarado
Citation
2023 UT App 123
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20210416-CA
Date Decided
October 13, 2023
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an adverse inference jury instruction under Utah Code section 77-7a-104.1 based on the officer’s failure to activate his body-worn camera, which would likely have been granted and created a reasonable probability of a different outcome on the fleeing by vehicle charge.
Standard of Review
No lower court ruling to review for ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal; court decides whether defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law
Practice Tip
When police officers fail to activate body-worn cameras during law enforcement encounters, request an adverse inference jury instruction under Utah Code section 77-7a-104.1, particularly in cases where witness credibility is central and camera footage would have been material to the outcome.
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.