MURRAY, Utah — The Utah Court of Appeals has vacated the conviction of a man who admitted to shooting another man during an argument in Murray back in 2021.
In a court opinion filed Thursday, the court cited that testimony from a detective, which the prosecution had highlighted in their closing argument, was inadmissible.
The original incident took place around 1:00 p.m. on April 21, 2021, in the area of 4500 South Main Street. As FOX 13 News previously reported, officers found the victim, Darrell Brown, 39, laying in the road with multiple gunshot wounds.
The accused, Patrick Brown, was identified by the passengers in the victim's vehicle. Once police made contact and began questioning him, Brown admitted the two had gotten into an argument at a nearby apartment complex, leaving in separate cars and then later colliding at the scene of the shooting, later admitting that he fired four shots.
During the trial, while Brown admitted to shooting and killing the victim, he maintained that he was acting in self-defense, feeling he had no choice but to shoot after the victim rammed into the back of his car. Brown was booked and later charged with Murder, as well as multiple charges of Aggravated Assault and Felony Discharge of a Firearm, among other offenses.
A detective was brought in to testify on behalf of the state. In his testimony, the detective stated that the act of ramming a vehicle would be classified as criminal mischief, rather than aggravated assault, as the defense had claimed.
The defense objected, stating the detective's testimony was an improper opinion stating an impermissible legal conclusion. In layman's terms, the defense was saying that the detective's testimony was making a legal judgment, a function reserved for a judge or jury, not an officer.
The judge overruled the objection and the testimony was admitted. The jury found Brown guilty on all counts, but the murder charge was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of imperfect self-defense with extreme emotional distress.
The appellate court ruled that the testimony was prejudicial and that the district court abused their discretion.
"Detective’s testimony was improper and it prejudiced Brown’s case. Brown should have the benefit of a trial without the influence of Detective’s improper legal conclusions," writes Judge David Mortensen in the court opinion. "In the context of this case, the admission of that testimony and the prosecutor’s overt emphasis on it prejudiced Brown and undermines our confidence in the verdict."
A date for the new trial has yet to be set.
