Facts:
Ruben Sal Roybal was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. The conviction stemmed from an altercation with his then-girlfriend, during which he physically attacked and stabbed her. Roybal appealed his conviction on three primary grounds: (1) the trial court’s ruling that if he introduced evidence of Girlfriend’s past violence against him, the prosecution could present contextual evidence of that violence; (2) the admission of his prior felony conviction under Rule 609 of the Utah Rules of Evidence; and (3) the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that they could determine both the facts and the law. Additionally, Roybal sought a remand under Rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure to supplement the record for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in ruling that if Roybal introduced evidence of Girlfriend’s prior violence, the prosecution could introduce contextual evidence?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecution to introduce Roybal’s prior felony conviction?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury that it could decide both the law and the facts?
- Did Roybal meet the burden under Rule 23B to justify a remand for ineffective assistance of counsel?
Rule:
- Under Utah Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by concerns such as undue delay or wasting time.
- Utah Rule of Evidence 609 allows the admission of prior felony convictions to impeach a defendant’s credibility, subject to balancing under Rule 403.
- Jurors must decide the facts of a case, but courts instruct them on the law and they are required to follow those instructions (United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995); State v. Palmer, 2009 UT 55).
- A remand under Rule 23B is granted only when a defendant presents a nonspeculative claim of ineffective assistance that requires supplementation of the record.
Application:
The court found no abuse of discretion in its ruling that opening the door to Girlfriend’s prior violence would also allow the prosecution to introduce a video providing context. The video was deemed highly probative, and its admission would not have significantly wasted time in a three-day trial.
Even assuming the trial court erred in admitting Roybal’s prior felony, he was not prejudiced. The jury learned only that he had a felony conviction, without details, and the strong evidence against him—including eyewitness testimony and the implausibility of his self-defense claim—made it unlikely that this admission affected the verdict.
The court correctly denied Roybal’s request for a jury instruction allowing jurors to determine the law. Established case law makes clear that judges instruct juries on the law, and jurors are required to follow those instructions.
Roybal’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because his attorney’s decision not to introduce the video evidence was a reasonable strategic choice. The video included damaging statements from Girlfriend that could have harmed his case more than helped it. Therefore, he did not meet the burden for a Rule 23B remand.
Conclusion:
The appellate court affirmed Roybal’s convictions. It held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, properly instructed the jury, and that Roybal failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. His Rule 23B motion was denied, and his convictions were upheld.