State v. Doyle

2018 UT App 239
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee,
v.
TRAVIS LEE DOYLE,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20170024-CA
Filed December 28, 2018
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Royal I. Hansen
No. 111900760
Diana Pierson, Maren E. Larson, and Sarah J.
Carlquist, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Kris C. Leonard, Attorneys
for Appellee
JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES GREGORY K. O RME and M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN
F ORSTER concurred.
POHLMAN, Judge:
¶1 	Travis Lee Doyle appeals his conviction for aggravated
assault. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to
disprove his claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
We affirm.

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	2 	2018 UT App 239
BACKGROUND1
¶2 	On Christmas Eve 2010, Victim went to a party with his
girlfriend (Girlfriend). The party was hosted by Girlfriend’s
uncle (Uncle) and included about two dozen guests, mostly
Girlfriend’s family. Uncle also invited Doyle, who attended the
party with two friends. Girlfriend knew Doyle growing up, but
Victim had never met him.
¶3 	While Doyle, Girlfriend, and Victim were together in
Uncle’s kitchen, Girlfriend introduced Victim and Doyle. Victim,
who had been keeping to himself, looked up as Girlfriend
introduced him as her “old man.” Victim smiled and said,
“Hello,” and Doyle responded, “Are you looking at me funny?”
or, “You looking at me crazy fool?” Victim shook his head and
said, “No,” looking down to avoid a confrontation. According to
Girlfriend, all three of them looked away and she thought they
“were all cool.”
¶4 	The next thing Victim remembered was waking up on the
kitchen floor. He did not remember getting punched but felt
pain “shooting through [his] eye and the left side of [his] face.”
At trial, Girlfriend recalled that Doyle “cold clocked” Victim
after they had all looked away. The punch knocked Victim “out
cold,” and Girlfriend testified that Doyle started hitting and
kicking Victim while he lay unconscious on the floor. Girlfriend
tried to stop the assault, but Doyle’s two friends joined the attack
and she was eventually pulled out of the kitchen by her cousin.
1. “When reviewing a jury verdict, we examine the evidence and
all 	reasonable 	inferences 	drawn 	therefrom 	in 	a 	light 	most
favorable to the verdict, and we recite the facts accordingly. We
present conflicting evidence only when necessary to understand
issues raised on appeal.” State v. Tulley, 2018 UT 35, ¶ 4 n.1, 428
P.3d 1005 (quotation simplified).

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	3 	2018 UT App 239
In the fracas, Girlfriend was punched and had a tooth knocked
out, but she did not know who hit her. Girlfriend later testified
that the beating of Victim lasted for, what seemed to her, two to
three minutes.
¶5 	The other partygoers heard the commotion coming from
the kitchen, and Girlfriend’s family rushed to the scene and
helped Victim. As people moved out of the kitchen, Uncle
confronted Doyle to figure out what happened. Doyle was
“hyped up” and “[r]eally aggressive” and told Uncle that Victim
had disrespected him and “was giving him dirty looks” when
the two were introduced. Doyle did not claim that Victim had
acted aggressively toward him or that Doyle was defending
himself.
¶6 	Girlfriend’s cousin also confronted Doyle, asking him if
he hit Girlfriend. Doyle made “some cocky ass response” like,
“You 	know 	I 	did.” 	Sensing 	additional 	impending 	trouble,
another 	partygoer 	(J.G.) 	stepped 	between 	them 	to 	prevent
another fight. But when J.G. turned his back to Doyle, Doyle
punched him in the back of the head. Another fight started, and
Doyle’s two friends again joined the fray. Someone called the
police, and Doyle and one of his friends left, leaving the other
friend behind.
¶7 	Doyle 	was 	not 	gone 	for 	long. 	J.G. 	went 	outside 	to
escape 	the 	“craziness” 	with 	his 	girlfriend, 	who 	was 	eight
months pregnant. As she and J.G. were talking, Doyle and
his friend approached them and started “talking crazy.” J.G.
and the pair again exchanged blows, and the friend took a
swing 	at 	the 	girlfriend’s 	stomach. 	J.G. 	was 	able 	to 	block
the swing but was knocked down. Doyle yelled, “I’m going to
try to catch a murder charge,” and then he jumped in the
car with his friend and left. The police arrived less than one
minute later.

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	4 	2018 UT App 239
¶8 	Victim later returned home, deciding not to go to the
hospital that night because it was Christmas Eve. The next
morning, he woke up and had Christmas with his kids but was
in “an extreme amount of pain.” Girlfriend took him to the
emergency room, where he was referred to a plastic surgeon
(Doctor). Doctor found that Victim had suffered numerous bone
fractures around his left eye, but delayed surgery for more than
two weeks due to swelling. When Doctor was able to perform
the surgery, it took eleven hours to repair the damage to Victim’s
face and position three permanent titanium plates and one
biodegradable plate. Doctor later testified at trial that, although
it was possible Victim’s injuries were caused by a single punch,
it would have required a “significant amount of force.” Based on
his experience, Doctor was ultimately unsure how many times
Victim was hit.
¶9 	Due to his injuries, Victim did not return to work for
nearly two months, lived off a liquid diet for two weeks, and
was unable to communicate without pain and discomfort. To
this 	day, 	Victim 	suffers 	from 	migraines 	and 	vision 	loss,
conditions he never had before the incident.
¶10 	The 	State 	charged 	Doyle 	with 	aggravated 	assault
resulting in serious bodily injury, a second degree felony, and
included an in-concert enhancement.2 At trial, Doyle argued
2. Doyle was charged with aggravated assault under Utah Code
section 76-5-103. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-103(2)(b) (LexisNexis
Supp. 2010). Under section 76-3-203.1, a defendant is subject to
an “enhanced penalty” for assault “if the trier of fact finds
beyond a reasonable doubt that the person acted . . . in concert
with two or more persons.” Id. § 76-3-203.1(2)(a), (5)(b). If the
enhanced penalty applied to Doyle, it would have elevated his
crime from a second degree felony to a first degree felony. See id.
§ 76-3-203.1(4)(d).

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	5 	2018 UT App 239
self-defense, claiming that Victim threatened him with a beer
bottle. 	Doyle 	testified 	that 	immediately 	after 	Girlfriend
introduced them, Victim “turned around and grabbed a bottle
off the counter” and raised it above his head in a threatening
manner. To defend himself, Doyle hit Victim one time and then
was “jumped” by Girlfriend’s family. At the end of trial, Doyle
moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State did not meet
its burden of disproving self-defense. The trial court denied the
motion and found that there was a “disputed issue” as to
self-defense that should go to the jury. The court instructed the
jury on self-defense, explaining that the prosecution had the
burden to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense
[did] not apply.” After a two-day trial, the jury found Doyle
guilty 	of 	aggravated 	assault 	but 	rejected 	the 	in-concert
enhancement. Doyle appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶11 	Doyle asks us to reverse his conviction for aggravated
assault, contending that the trial court should have granted his
motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient
evidence to disprove his claim of self-defense. “We review a trial
court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict for correctness.”
State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 21, 345 P.3d 1168.
When a party moves for a directed verdict based
on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we will
uphold the trial court’s decision if, upon reviewing
the 	evidence 	and 	all 	inferences 	that 	can 	be
reasonably drawn from it, we conclude that some
evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could
find 	that 	the 	elements 	of 	the 	crime 	had 	been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Hirschi, 2007 UT App 255, ¶ 15, 167 P.3d 503 (quotation
simplified).

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	6 	2018 UT App 239
ANALYSIS
I. Preservation
¶12 	Doyle’s insufficiency challenge has two components: first,
that the evidence supporting his conviction and disproving his
self-defense 	claim 	was 	“inconclusive 	and 	speculative”; 	and
second, that in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence against
Doyle, 	the 	trial 	court 	should 	have 	disregarded 	Girlfriend’s
testimony as “inherently improbable.” The State counters that
these 	issues 	were 	unpreserved. It 	acknowledges that 	Doyle
moved for a directed verdict in the trial court but argues that he
did not preserve his sufficiency challenges “because his blanket
objections below . . . were not specific to the claims he now
raises.”
¶13 	To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must present it
“to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an
opportunity to rule on that issue.” State v. Gallegos, 2018 UT App
112, ¶ 14, 427 P.3d 578 (quoting 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc.,
2004 UT 72, ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801). This means that a party must raise
the issue “specifically” and “in a timely fashion,” and support
the argument with “evidence or relevant legal authority.” Id.
(quotation simplified). There is no dispute that Doyle’s motion
for a directed verdict was timely, but we must decide whether
the issues were specifically raised and supported by relevant
authority.
¶14 	We conclude that Doyle’s motion for a directed verdict
preserved his inconclusive-and-speculative challenge but did not
preserve his distinct claim that Girlfriend’s testimony should
have been disregarded in its entirety as inherently improbable.
A. 	Inconclusive and Speculative
¶15 	On appeal, Doyle contends that the evidence relevant to
his 	self-defense 	claim 	was 	“inconclusive 	and 	speculative,”

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	7 	2018 UT App 239
raising 	several 	arguments in 	support. 	See 	infra Part 	III. 	To
support his claim that these arguments were preserved, Doyle
relies principally on State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, 345 P.3d 1168,
and State v. Gallegos, 2018 UT App 112, 427 P.3d 578. Under those
cases, 	Doyle 	maintains 	that 	his 	arguments 	regarding 	the
sufficiency of the evidence to disprove self-defense were clear
from the context of the directed verdict motion. See Gonzalez,
2015 UT 10, ¶ 26 (“When the specific ground for an objection is
clear from its context, the issue is preserved for appeal.”). And
although he makes more developed arguments on appeal, he
asserts that the arguments below “were not ‘so tangential that
[they 	do] 	not 	mirror 	[the] 	specific 	arguments 	on 	appeal.’”
(Quoting 	Gallegos, 	2018 	UT 	App 	112, 	¶ 	16.) 	The 	State, 	in
response, relies primarily on State v. Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89,
275 P.3d 1032, and contends that Doyle’s “general assertions”
below 	failed 	to 	“assert 	the 	specific 	argument[s] 	raised 	on
appeal.” (Quoting Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89, ¶ 8.)
¶16 	Regarding 	Doyle’s 	more 	generalized 	argument
challenging 	the 	self-defense 	evidence 	as 	inconclusive 	and
speculative, we agree that this case more closely resembles
Gonzalez 	and 	Gallegos 	than 	Bosquez. 	As 	in 	Gallegos, 	Doyle’s
arguments on appeal merely present the self-defense argument
from below “with more flesh on the bone.” See 2018 UT App 112,
¶ 16. In his motion for a directed verdict, Doyle argued that the
State had the burden to disprove self-defense and that it had to
“present more than [it] ha[d]” to meet that burden. In Doyle’s
view, his testimony that he was threatened by Victim was never
disproven. 	These 	arguments 	were 	tersely 	made, 	but 	were
presented in context of the two-day trial in which self-defense
was an important issue. In his motion, Doyle did not identify
every perceived defect in the State’s evidence, but it was clear he
was arguing that the evidence presented was too inconclusive
and speculative to disprove self-defense. This basic theory—that
the State did not disprove that Doyle acted in self-defense—has
not changed. See State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 14 n.2, 416 P.3d

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	8 	2018 UT App 239
443 (explaining that, once through the preservation door, “new
arguments” are allowed but “new legal theories” are not). Thus,
the issue was “presented to the trial court in such a way that the
trial court ha[d] an opportunity to rule on [it].” See Gallegos, 2018
UT App 112, ¶ 14 (quotation simplified). Because the issue was
preserved, we will reach it on its merits. See infra Part III.
B. 	Inherent Improbability
¶17 	We reach a different conclusion, however, on Doyle’s
inherent-improbability argument. Under State v. Robbins, 2009
UT 23, 210 P.3d 288, a court may disregard testimony that is
“inherently improbable” when determining whether there is
sufficient 	evidence 	for 	a 	conviction. 	Id. 	¶ 	13. 	The 	inherent
improbability doctrine has very limited applicability and comes
into play “only in those instances where (1) there are material
inconsistencies 	in 	the 	testimony 	and 	(2) 	there 	is 	no 	other
circumstantial or direct evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Id.
¶ 19; see also State v. Prater, 2017 UT 13, ¶ 38, 392 P.3d 398
(explaining that the Robbins court relied on “inconsistencies in
the [witness’s] testimony plus the patently false statements the
[witness] made plus the lack of any corroboration”).
¶18 	On appeal, Doyle argues that Girlfriend’s testimony of a
“prolonged 	assault 	by 	multiple 	attackers 	was 	inherently
improbable” 	and 	that, 	in 	evaluating 	the 	sufficiency 	of 	the
evidence, the trial court should have disregarded her testimony
in its entirety under Robbins. In support, he asserts that Victim’s
injuries were inconsistent with Girlfriend’s version of events:
Victim had injuries only to the face with no other injuries to his
body. According to Doyle, if Girlfriend’s account were true—
that Victim was punched and kicked for two to three minutes by
three attackers—Victim would have had more serious injuries.
In 	addition, 	Doyle 	asserts 	that 	Girlfriend’s 	testimony 	was
“patently false” and “uncorroborated.” For these reasons, he

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	9 	2018 UT App 239
maintains that Girlfriend’s testimony cannot sustain the jury’s
verdict.
¶19 	This goes far beyond what was argued in the motion for a
directed verdict. Robbins may be a component of an insufficiency
challenge, but not every insufficiency challenge raises a Robbins
issue. 	Doyle’s 	contention 	that 	the 	trial 	court 	should 	have
evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence without Girlfriend’s
testimony does not merely add “more flesh on the bone.” See
State v. Gallegos, 2018 UT App 112, ¶ 16, 427 P.3d 578. Instead, it
introduces a new legal theory: that the insufficiency should be
reviewed 	only 	after 	Girlfriend’s 	testimony 	is 	ignored 	as
“inherently improbable.” And unlike the arguments above, supra
Part I.A., it would not have been clear from context that the
motion for a directed verdict was making a Robbins challenge.
Instead, the motion centered on the State’s burden of proof and
its alleged failure to disprove Doyle’s testimony that he acted
defensively based on all of the evidence presented. There was
never 	any 	argument 	that 	Girlfriend’s 	testimony 	was 	so
inherently 	improbable 	that 	it 	should 	be 	disregarded 	before
analyzing the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. Thus, this
particular challenge was not presented to the trial court and was
not preserved for appeal. See Gallegos, 2018 UT App 112, ¶ 14.3
3. At the end of trial, Doyle moved for two directed verdicts. The
first was reserved by Doyle’s counsel at the close of the State’s
case-in-chief and was presented with the second at the close of
all 	the 	evidence. 	The 	first 	motion 	concerned 	the 	in-concert
enhancement. In that motion, Doyle argued that “there were
some considerable inconsistencies as to whether or not two or
more people were involved” and that Girlfriend’s testimony on
this point was uncorroborated. In the second motion, Doyle
argued self-defense, and that the State had not met its burden to
disprove that defense. The State stresses that these motions were
(continued…)

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	10 	2018 UT App 239
II. Plain Error
¶20 	Alternatively, 	Doyle 	contends 	that 	the 	trial 	court
committed plain error by considering Girlfriend’s testimony in
reviewing his motion for a directed verdict. “The plain error
doctrine serves as an exception to our long-standing rule that
issues cannot be raised on appeal if they were not argued below
at trial.” State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 36, 361 P.3d 104. But we will
not find plain error based on insufficient evidence unless the
insufficiency is “obvious and fundamental.” State v. Prater, 2017
UT 13, ¶ 28, 392 P.3d 398 (quotation simplified). “An example of
an obvious and fundamental insufficiency is the case in which
the State presents no evidence to support an essential element of
a criminal charge.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶21 	In 	Prater, 	our 	supreme 	court 	reviewed 	the 	inherent
improbability of witness testimony for plain error. Id. ¶ 27. And
there, the court emphasized that “the usual course” is to allow
“the jury to assess the credibility of witness testimony.” Id. ¶ 43.
Only 	when 	testimony 	is 	“inherently 	improbable,” 	that 	is,
“incredibly dubious and, as such, apparently false,” can the issue
be taken from the jury. Id. ¶¶ 32–33.
(…continued)
distinct and viewed in isolation by the trial court. Doyle counters
in his reply brief that “the trial court understood Doyle’s second
motion 	incorporated the 	facts 	and 	argument 	from 	the 	first
motion.” We do not decide whether the motions can be viewed
together. 	Even 	though 	the 	first 	motion 	made 	references 	to
“inconsistencies,” it made no suggestion that the trial court
should 	disregard 	Girlfriend’s 	testimony 	as 	inherently
improbable. Considering both motions in context, neither raised,
in isolation or together, the distinct Robbins issue Doyle raises on
appeal. 	State 	v. 	Robbins, 	2009 	UT 	23, 	¶ 	13, 	210 	P.3d 	288.
Therefore, we conclude that the issue is unpreserved.

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	11 	2018 UT App 239
¶22 	Here, 	it 	is 	not 	obvious 	that 	the 	inconsistencies 	in
Girlfriend’s testimony “run so counter to human experience”
that it renders her testimony “inherently improbable.” See id.
¶ 39. As to Victim’s injuries being inconsistent with Girlfriend’s
testimony, Doctor testified that Victim’s significant injuries may
have been caused by a single blow, or by many. Ultimately,
Doctor could not say how many times Victim was hit. Thus, this
question properly went to the jury. Doyle also asserts that
Girlfriend’s testimony that she had a tooth knocked out during
the melee is inconsistent with her statement to police several
hours after the incident, where she did not report that fact. But
“pre-trial inconsistent statements do not render [a witness’s]
testimony ‘apparently false.’” Id. Instead, they present routine
credibility 	questions 	for 	a 	jury. 	Id. 	Next, 	Doyle 	attacks
Girlfriend’s 	estimation 	that 	the 	attack 	lasted 	two 	to 	three
minutes, saying this estimation is patently false because “none of
her 	approximately 	twenty 	family 	members intervened” 	and
“even 	the 	[prosecutor] 	acknowledged 	that 	[Girlfriend] 	was
wrong 	to 	testify 	that 	the 	incident 	lasted 	for 	two 	to 	three
minutes.” Yet the record shows that Girlfriend’s family did
intervene—even Doyle claimed that he was “jumped” as soon as
he 	hit 	Victim. 	And 	besides, 	how 	long 	the 	attack 	lasted 	is
irrelevant; the question is whether Doyle assaulted Victim—be it
for three seconds or three minutes. This is not an obvious basis
to disregard Girlfriend’s entire testimony.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
¶23 	Having concluded that Doyle preserved his insufficiency
challenge as to the inconclusive and speculative nature of the
evidence, we turn to the merits of that argument. In doing so, we
note “[a] defendant must overcome a substantial burden on
appeal to show that the trial court erred in denying a motion for
directed verdict.” State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27, 345 P.3d
1168. We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the
State” and will uphold the trial court’s denial of a motion for a

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	12 	2018 UT App 239
directed 	verdict 	if 	“some 	evidence 	exists 	from 	which 	a
reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had
been 	proven 	beyond 	a 	reasonable 	doubt.” 	Id. 	(quotation
simplified). We conclude that, “when viewed in the light most
favorable to the State,” there is indeed sufficient evidence “from
which a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt
that” 	Doyle 	did 	not 	act 	in 	self-defense. 	See 	id. 	(quotation
simplified).
¶24 	“A person is justified in threatening or using force against
another when and to the extent that the person reasonably
believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the
person . . . against another person’s imminent use of unlawful
force.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-402(1)(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2010).
“Once the jury has been instructed on self-defense, the State has
the 	burden 	to 	prove 	beyond 	a 	reasonable 	doubt 	that 	the
defendant did not act in self-defense.” State v. Lucero, 2012 UT
App 202, ¶ 6, 283 P.3d 967 (quotation simplified). In assessing
reasonable doubt, we recognize that the jury is the sole “arbiter
of witness credibility.” State v. White, 2011 UT App 162, ¶ 10, 258
P.3d 594 (quotation simplified). Our “inquiry ends when there is
some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which
findings 	of 	all 	the 	requisite 	elements 	of 	the 	crime 	[could]
reasonably be made.” Id. ¶ 8 (quotation simplified). Further,
“[i]nferences 	may 	reasonably 	be 	drawn 	from 	circumstantial
evidence.” State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5, ¶ 18, 349 P.3d 664. “And a
jury’s 	inference 	is 	reasonable 	unless 	it 	falls 	to 	a 	level 	of
inconsistency 	or 	incredibility 	that 	no 	reasonable 	jury 	could
accept.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶25 	Doyle contends that the State did not disprove his claim
of self-defense because it “did not present a witness who was
looking at [Victim] before Doyle punched him.” Because Victim
and Girlfriend were looking away before the attack, and because
there were no other eyewitnesses to the events, Doyle asserts
that there is no proof that Victim did not first threaten Doyle

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	13 	2018 UT App 239
with 	the 	beer 	bottle. 	In 	addition, 	Doyle 	contends 	that 	the
evidence 	is speculative 	because 	“Doyle’s 	behavior 	after 	the
incident” does not speak to Doyle’s actions in regard to Victim.
We conclude both contentions lack merit.
¶26 	First, there was at least one witness to the incident. Victim
testified that (1) his memory of before he was hit was “[v]ery
clear,” (2) when Doyle asked him if he was looking at him funny,
he looked away to avoid a confrontation, and (3) he “did not
want to confront [Doyle].” Further, when asked whether he
made 	“any 	threats 	toward 	Mr. 	Doyle” 	or 	did 	“anything
aggressive towards Mr. Doyle before [he] got punched,” Victim
said, “No.” And even assuming that Girlfriend did not witness
the initial hit because she momentarily looked away after Victim
and Doyle were introduced, she testified that, based on her
observations and impressions, Doyle “cold clocked” Victim and
that Doyle continued to hit and kick Victim while he was
unconscious. At any rate, eyewitness testimony is not required
to disprove self-defense. See Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73,
¶ 11, 358 P.3d 1067 (“Circumstantial evidence alone may be
sufficient 	to 	establish 	the 	guilt 	of 	the 	accused.” 	(quotation
simplified)). 	Instead, 	the 	jury, 	“as 	the 	arbiter 	of 	witness
credibility,” White, 2011 UT App 162, ¶ 10 (quotation simplified),
could reasonably find, and in fact did find, that Victim was
credible and that Doyle was the aggressor.
¶27 	Second, the evidence would not require rank speculation
as Doyle contends. In this regard, Doyle misapprehends the
distinction between speculation and reasonable inference. This
distinction was explained by our supreme court in Carrera: “In
short, 	the 	difference 	between 	an 	inference 	and 	speculation
depends 	on 	whether 	the 	underlying 	facts 	support 	the
conclusion. A jury draws a reasonable inference if there is an
evidentiary foundation to draw and support the conclusion.”
2015 UT 73, ¶ 12. Victim testified that he did not want to fight
Doyle and looked away before being punched. Girlfriend also

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	14 	2018 UT App 239
testified that Victim looked away after the tense introduction.
The 	fact 	that 	Victim 	looked 	down 	supports the 	reasonable
inference that Victim did not grab a bottle off the counter to
attack Doyle.
¶28 	Moreover, J.G. testified that Victim is “such a nice guy”
and a “nonviolent kind of guy.” In contrast, J.G.’s girlfriend
testified that Doyle was “hyped up” and “[r]eally aggressive.”
This is borne out by Doyle’s actions throughout the night of the
party. Doyle and his friends started several fights—with Victim,
with J.G., and with a woman who was eight months pregnant.
And when confronted by Uncle about the events in the kitchen,
Doyle did not say Victim had threatened him. Instead, more
consistent with Victim’s and Girlfriend’s accounts, Doyle told
Uncle that Victim had “giv[en] him dirty looks” and “had
disrespected him.” These facts support a reasonable inference
that, while Victim was nonviolent, Doyle was aggressive. They
also support the further inference that Doyle did not defend
himself in response to an unprovoked attack from Victim, but
that Doyle felt disrespected and hit Victim as Victim was looking
away. In short, there is “some evidence . . . from which a
reasonable 	jury 	could 	find” 	that 	Doyle 	did 	not 	act 	in
self-defense. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10, ¶ 27 (quotation simplified).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Doyle’s motion for
a directed verdict. See id. ¶ 33.
CONCLUSION
¶29 	We 	conclude 	that 	Doyle 	preserved 	part 	of 	his
insufficiency challenge through his motion for a directed verdict
but did not preserve his Robbins challenge as to Girlfriend’s
testimony. On the unpreserved Robbins claim, we conclude that
the trial court did not plainly err in not disregarding Girlfriend’s
testimony. 	And 	on 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	preserved 	claim, 	we
conclude that the State provided sufficient evidence to disprove

State v. Doyle
20170024-CA 	15 	2018 UT App 239
Doyle’s theory of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We
therefore affirm Doyle’s conviction for aggravated assault.