Salt Lake City v. Miles

Citations: 2013 UT App 77; 299 P.3d 1163; 731 Utah Adv. Rep. 32; 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 79; 2013 WL 1278511Docket: 20111124-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; March 28, 2013; Utah; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Wade John Miles appeals his conviction for possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a class A misdemeanor, following an incident in October 2011. While attempting to board a light rail train with a shopping cart, he was confronted by a train supervisor who suspected him of intoxication. During the encounter, Miles used profane language and threatened the supervisor, mentioning a knife and a gun. The supervisor's account varied, indicating Miles claimed he had these weapons and would use them if he was not allowed to leave.

Upon police arrival, Miles failed a field sobriety test and was arrested due to his perceived danger to himself and others. A search of his shopping cart revealed a folding knife in his jacket pocket, which Miles claimed he had forgotten about. The knife, approximately 3½ inches long with a serrated blade, posed a potential risk for serious injury, according to the arresting officer.

At trial, a booking photo of Miles was admitted as evidence to illustrate his condition at the time of the incident, despite his objection on relevance grounds. Ultimately, after a one-day jury trial, Miles was acquitted of charges related to criminal trespass, threats, and intoxication but was convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. The court affirmed the conviction, citing no substantive changes in the applicable law.

Miles presents two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on the dangerous weapon charge, asserting that the standard for reviewing such claims is highly deferential to jury findings. The court reviews evidence in a manner favorable to the jury's verdict and only reverses if no reasonable minds could agree with the verdict. 

Second, Miles claims the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his booking photo. The court holds broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence, and such determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In examining the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the knife Miles possessed, the court interprets the statutory definition of a dangerous weapon, which is defined as an item capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The court emphasizes the need to analyze the statute's plain language, considering it in its entirety and ensuring that every word carries meaning. The statute outlines four factors for determining if a knife qualifies as a dangerous weapon: (1) the character of the instrument; (2) the nature of any produced wounds; (3) the manner of use; and (4) any lawful purposes for which the item may be used. The trial court directed the jury to evaluate these factors.

Additionally, the court references previous cases that establish two categories for dangerous weapons: items commonly recognized as dangerous weapons and items not typically known as such but may qualify based on the specified characteristics. The prior case law did not apply the statutory factors to determine if knives were dangerous weapons, concluding instead that they were commonly known as such.

Miles argues that all four factors outlined in the statute must be present for an item to be classified as a dangerous weapon, emphasizing that actual use is necessary. He contends that without actual use in a dangerous manner, merely carrying a knife does not constitute possession of a dangerous weapon. However, this interpretation conflicts with the statutory definition of a dangerous weapon, which includes items capable of causing death or serious bodily injury based on their intended use, indicating that actual use is not a prerequisite.

Additionally, Miles’ interpretation contradicts other provisions, specifically section 76‐10‐503, which criminalizes possession of a dangerous weapon, allowing for prosecution without actual use. Consequently, the court concludes that the statute does not mandate actual use for an item to qualify as a dangerous weapon.

In evaluating the sufficiency of evidence regarding the knife Miles possessed, the court examines the four factors: 

1. **Character of the Instrument**: The knife has a 3½-inch blade, a handle of similar length, a thumb stud for one-handed use, and a serrated edge, making it potentially dangerous.
   
2. **Character of the Wound**: Although no wound was inflicted, expert testimony indicated that the knife could cause serious harm, including permanent disfigurement or death.
   
3. **Manner of Use**: Although Miles did not physically use the knife, he threatened a supervisor with it, framing it as a weapon. It was also within his reach in a shopping cart.
   
4. **Other Lawful Uses**: Miles claimed the knife was for camping, which is a lawful and benign use.

Ultimately, the court finds sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that the knife qualifies as a dangerous weapon based on the statutory factors.

Miles possessed a knife with a one-handed opening blade that could cause serious injuries, and he had made threats regarding the supervisor, which led to a conclusion that the knife was a dangerous weapon. The court found that reasonable minds could reach this verdict based on the evidence presented. Regarding the admission of Miles's booking photo, the trial court did not abuse its discretion despite Miles's arguments that the photo was irrelevant and prejudicial. The court emphasized that evidence relevant to the charge of intoxication, including his appearance shortly after arrest, was admissible. The prosecutor's comments about the photo were aimed at contextualizing the dangerous weapon charge, linking it to Miles's intoxication. Miles's failure to cite specific record evidence weakened his argument, and he did not claim prosecutorial misconduct on appeal. Ultimately, he did not demonstrate that the admission of the photo had a prejudicial effect that could have influenced the trial's outcome, as no reasonable likelihood of a different result was established.

Miles contends that if the jury had not seen his booking photo, they likely would have reached a different verdict due to insufficient evidence regarding the four statutory factors for classifying a knife as a dangerous weapon. The court disagrees, asserting that the evidence was adequate to support the conviction. The jury's acquittal of other charges indicates that the booking photo did not unduly influence their decision. The dissent argues that the photo's admission violated rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence and was prejudicial, but Miles did not object to this at trial or on appeal, rendering the argument unconsidered. The majority concludes that the trial court did not err in admitting the photo, and even if it had, any potential error was harmless, affirming the conviction. The dissenting judge believes the evidence was insufficient to classify Miles’s pocket knife as a dangerous weapon, emphasizing that the only supporting evidence was the knife's potential to inflict harm and Miles's threat, which lacked context as he did not attempt to use the knife.

The case centers on a small pocket knife owned by Miles, which, while capable of causing serious harm, was not shown to have been used or intended for such purposes. The knife remained in a jacket pocket during an altercation, and despite Miles allegedly threatening a supervisor, he did not brandish or attempt to use the knife. The supervisor’s testimony contradicted his earlier report, which stated that Miles would kill him if armed, and Miles later claimed he forgot he had the knife. The jury acquitted Miles of the threat charge but convicted him of possessing a dangerous weapon, despite the evidence not supporting this classification.

The analysis of the knife as a dangerous weapon was criticized for focusing on its potential to inflict injury rather than actual injuries caused, which contradicts statutory interpretation allowing lawful possession of knives. The argument suggests that such an analysis unfairly restricts the ability to carry any sharp object. Given that no harm was inflicted, and the knife was suitable for benign uses, the evidence was deemed insufficient to support the conviction.

Additionally, the admission of a booking photograph was challenged for its relevance versus prejudicial effect, arguing that its potential to bias the jury outweighed its slight relevance. The exclusion of the photograph could have led to a different outcome in the case, as the jury's conviction on insufficient evidence suggested possible bias.