State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5 - Prosecutorial Misconduct

Ashcraft appealed his 'possession with intent to distribute' conviction by alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5

            The defendant appealed his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a dangerous weapon by challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The Utah Supreme Court rejected his arguments giving “substantial deference to the jury.” They “review the evidence and ill inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, ¶ 46.

            Possession charges need only a showing of a “sufficient nexus between the accused and the [contraband] to permit an inference that the accused had both the power and the inherent to exercise dominion and control over the [contraband].” State v. Fox, 709 P.2d 316, 319 (Utah 1985). The court looked at the cumulative evidence, in the light of the specific situation, to confirm that the jury verdict was reasonable, not to determine if there is another possible explanation for the events.

            “To sustain a reversal on an assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must establish both that the prosecutor’s conduct ‘call[ed] to the attention of the jurors matters they would not be justified in considering in determining their verdict and, under the circumstances of the particular case, the error is substantial and prejudicial.’” State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546, 555 (Utah 1987).

            The court did not find prosecutorial misconduct here because “[t]he prosecutor did not ask the jurors to defer to the state’s judgment over their own. He simply summarized his position and the evidence supporting it and then asked the jury to enter a conviction. Such a statement is as commonplace as it is innocuous in closing argument—a matter well within the realm of appropriate prosecutorial conduct.”

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/ashcraft150123.pdf