Utah Court of Appeals hears challenge to admission of codefendant’s confession in State v. Farmer

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument on whether written and oral statements attributed to codefendant Danny Villegas should have been admitted under Utah Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) and whether any error deprived appellant Theron Farmer of a fair trial.

Appellant’s counsel, Jessica Heidholzer, told the court that Farmer “did not receive a fair trial because Theron's codefendants, Danny's confessions, should have been admitted under rule 8 0 4 b 3 as statements against interest.” She argued the confessions provided corroborating circumstances—such as that Eric was shot while Farmer was in the bathroom, accounts that a person stepped toward a hallway and then retreated into a bedroom, and a contemporaneous 911 call—that should have been presented to a jury rather than excluded as unreliable.

Heidholzer asked the panel to review the trial court’s ruling under a correctness standard, saying the “ultimate issue is a legal issue” of whether corroborating circumstances exist to permit admission. She repeatedly told the court that the recantation attributed to Villegas and other credibility questions went to weight, not admissibility: “He confessed, then he took it back. Let the fact finder sort that out,” an exchange in the record summarized by the court during questioning.

The State responded that admissibility rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and argued the trial court did not err in excluding the statements. A state attorney told the panel that “evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abusive discretion,” argued the corroboration presented by Farmer did not “clearly indicate trustworthiness,” and emphasized the significance of the later disavowal sent from Villegas’ jail account. The prosecutor also argued that any error would be harmless because, in the State’s view, the trial record contained overwhelming evidence of Farmer’s guilt and the jury had already rejected Farmer’s versions of events.

During questioning the panel pressed both sides on several discrete issues that informed admissibility and prejudice analyses: (1) what standard of review applies to the trial court’s gatekeeping function under Rule 804(b)(3); (2) whether the later message in which Villegas allegedly recanted undermines trustworthiness so as to bar admission; (3) whether the source account (the message originated from Villegas’ jail tablet) was adequately authenticated or could have been sent by another inmate with shared credentials; and (4) whether any error in admitting or excluding the evidence—or in instructions given to the jury, including a unanimity instruction—would have affected the verdict.

Heidholzer listed specific corroborating circumstances she said supported admission: the timing of the 911 call while Farmer was in another room, testimony describing a small physical space where brief movement between hallway and bedroom is plausible, and forensic evidence the counsel said was consistent with a person being shot and then moving a short distance. The State countered that the later email disavowing the earlier message, the unclear provenance of the tablet login at 02:39 a.m., and other trial testimony gave the trial court a reasonable basis to question trustworthiness.

On ineffective-assistance and instruction claims, the State told the court that reasonable trial strategy could explain defense counsel’s choices (such as not re‑raising the Rule 804 objection after certain trial evidence) and that the record showed no reasonable probability of a different outcome even if the statements had been admitted. The State also maintained the jury’s verdicts on underlying counts and the evidence presented at trial defeated any claim of prejudice from an excluded confession or a missing unanimity instruction.

The court did not issue an immediate ruling. After hearing argument from both sides and asking follow-up questions, the panel recessed; the clerk announced, “We will be in recess until 10:15.”

The appeal centers on legal standards and factual questions that the Court of Appeals must resolve in written opinion—principally whether the corroborating circumstances “clearly indicate trustworthiness” under Rule 804(b)(3) and, if admission was erroneous, whether the error was prejudicial to Farmer’s convictions.