May we begin by confirming whether or not there's any uh legal discussion we need to have regarding the text message excerpt that uh the defense offered during cross-examination of Detective O'Driscoll at the end of the day yesterday. >> Yes. >> Yes. Shorter, I think we do. May I stay seated so I can read my um >> Of course. Okay. Uh, just one second. Let me pull it up. >> If we can all look at it at the same time, I'd appreciate it. Kitty, >> are you pulling up the celebrate one or the Okay. So, it's up on the screen right now. So, it starts with Bates number state s a t 0335281. And this was produced to us um before the state went through and updated the time. So this is on UTC time instead of mountain time. Okay. >> At some point in this case and there have been so many supplemental I think we're on our 10th exhibit list. I think we're, you know, anyway, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of alterations and substitutions, but this is the one we got before they had changed the UTC time, which was confusing to everybody, and so they went back and redid that. This version, they had not changed it yet to mountain time. This is um a consecutively numbered bates numbered document. There's no pages missing. This is coming from a celebrate extraction of Eric's phone that was seized by Mr. O'Driscoll. We just found the Celebrite and extracted by Miss Gibson. >> Can you show me the celebration? >> Yes, sir. We are. We can and we're pulling it up right now. >> It's a very big file. So, what I've done is I've emailed Katie the cover page and then I'm working on the box download so she could download. >> Forgive me. And this is a nuts and bolts question. Forgive my ignorance. >> I'm looking at one page that shows three text messages total, >> right? >> Typically, these are a complete string that has a Cellbrite header. Where is that version of this text? So, not all of the ones we've introduced in this trial have the celbride header. Only some of them. Not all >> I don't know if is that true? I thought all of them had the celbride header. >> No, that is not true. Um >> I hold on. Let's pause there for a second because I think that's how we've been laying foundation for the admission of them so far. Foundation, >> right, >> Mr. Bledworth? Is my memory correct? it uh unless they came from I mean we've had CDR related metadata regarding text messages. We've had some nonbubble related or nonbubble depicted correct >> cell messages that have come out of other extractions. But in terms of blue and green bubbles, >> I thought all of them had a cellbrite header. >> Yeah, I believe that's right your honor. If if if we prepared an exhibit that comes from a celebrate extraction, it has the celebrate header, >> right? >> There's there's others where we just, you know, we we we've got texts from other means. Somebody sent us forwarded this text, right? But if >> screenshots, for example, >> correct? If it comes from a celebrate extraction, as as best I recall, it has the celebrate header. Okay. And and uh Miss Neester, I'll give you the record back here in a second, but it's also unclear to me, is this three text messages that we're talking about, are they part of a larger exchange that has already been admitted? >> So, these are all the text messages he had with Corey on the day the day he passed on the 3rd. Um >> on the third or the fourth? >> The third. He died early morning in the fourth. So it's from the third. >> Okay. >> Um so um >> these three bubbles are like sum total of their text traffic on the >> No, it's we have more than three. There's um just a minute. There's a couple pages to it. It's the last set of text that they um there's multiple. See, that's the second page. And yeah, >> and that's the last text that they had between the two of them before. >> Can you go to that one, please? Katie, can you blow up the third one on that sheet? So as I understand it among other objections that the state may have the first one is foundation correct Mr. Bledworth. >> Yes. So that's the threshold objection. >> Right. And as I understood it yesterday the the foundation objection was this is not what it purports to be because the time sorry the daytime information is inaccurate. >> Correct. Your honor, the state's question as to whether this is what it purports to be. The genesis of that is that I noticed that the time is not corrected and I would expect during what for the cro celebrate downloads that we have authenticated um and laid foundation for the time change is baked in >> consistent across the board >> consistent across the board. So the fact that this is still in UTC minus5 instead of UTC minus 6 or 7 just caused me to question where this came from which Celebrite download it came from and I still don't I still don't know. We >> So that brings us to is there a version of this that has the Cellbrite header? >> That's what's on the screen right now. >> And so if you would scroll through this extraction report and show me where it includes the portions that you want to use with this witness just so we're all on the same page. >> Just give us a second. We're It's very long so we have to go right to it. Just give us just one minute. >> No problem. >> Oh, are you on a Mac? Oh god. Our millennial has a Mac, so it may take a second. >> Well, this discussion doesn't need to be had with me on the record in front of everybody if you can have it with each other first and then distill down what the dispute is if any regarding the foundation. I understand there may be other objections that we have to get into >> and perhaps your honor, we could work parallel while they're um seeking out the foundation information. Um we you know we could address um well a couple things I I think it's it's hearsay as best I can tell. These are conversations between the defendant and Eric Richens. Um the state's further objection is that it's beyond the scope of the direct. >> Let's handle those one at a time. >> Okay. >> Uh Ms. Netor, regarding hearsay, uh your client statements are hearsay if they're offered by you, >> right? >> Eric Richmond's statements are categorically hearsay if they're offered for the truth, >> right? what is the non hearsay purpose of these particular text messages. >> So we are actually not interested at all in what is being said and we could do an instruction to that excuse me to that effect. Um what we are trying to get in with this exhibit is a photograph that was sent on the day the day before technically Eric died on the 3. Um, and that that was sent the day before. That is connected to the GIFs, GIFs, whatever you say, that all got accessed the next morning at 8:30, which the state is making a big deal out of and mentioned in their opening and has called witnesses about it. >> Provide a little more context. What is the photograph of and who is it sent by? The photograph is sent by Eric to Corey on the third from when he's and there's been testimony that's come in that he was out there spreading gravel to make it look nice for the closing or whatever. And he sends her a picture of it while he's there before he gets home that night. That is one of the pictures that is connected to the GIFs that were accessed, the orphan gifs the next morning at 8:40 as soon as the police leave. And they're trying to make it seem like Corey was celebrating he died with these happy gifs. Um, and it's connected because that picture was the implication that's being made is that those GIFs were being sent or accessed or sent by or to Corey the morning Eric died when actually the picture that was also accessed at the exact same time came from the day before. So, it doesn't mean that and that's what we're trying to explain to the jury. All I care about is the non-estimonial section of the the interaction that shows he sent a picture on the third and that's one of these pictures that was accessed with these GIFs at the exact same time and it was sent the day before and that's all we're trying to do. We don't care about what's in the bubbles. We can black out what's in the bubbles. I don't care. >> Why are you doing this through Detective O'Driscoll? Why didn't you do it through Mr. Katraimos? I'm not sure Mr. O'Drriscoll or Detective O'Driscoll has the ability to testify to any of what you just said. >> Well, he testified that he reviewed Eric's communications the day before he died. He did testify to that, >> right? But this goes well beyond that and is far more technical. >> Um, all I'm asking him to do is say, "Did you see he sent her a picture the day before? The rest of it we'll do separately." >> But that's not necessary foundation for the argument that you're trying to make. This is a technical metadatab based argument that I understand why uh defendant believes it's relevant. And I'm not suggesting it's not. I'm just not sure it's this witness. >> I'm not going to ask him about any of the metadata. I'm going to say, did you look at Eric's phone the day before? Did he send this picture to Corey? That's all I'm asking. Nothing fancy, nothing technical. He said he reviewed Eric's phone that he looked at his communications. And we can even take out the metadata and just show the picture. That's >> without the metadata, the picture is not relevant. You need the date and time. >> We have that. Um, >> no, no, no. We do need the date and time, but I'm talking about the um I thought there was more information on the bottom of those things. And we >> Why are we doing this for Detective O'Driscoll rather than through another another witness that can testify regarding the relationship between the file path for the GIFs and the file path for this photograph? because he reviewed it and saw it. I mean, I think he can testify to it. >> I mean, Alex, >> he can't testify to any of the technical relationship that you're asking for. >> Correct. And we're not asking for that. That's all we're asking him is to say that the phone was the picture was sent the day the 3. That's all I need him to say. And he knows that because he reviewed it. So, he's capable. >> He knows what he saw. How does he know that the picture was sent the day before? >> Because it's on the face of it. But then then it's coming in for the truth, right? And so >> but that's not testimonial evidence. >> I agree. So if it's not testimonial and it's on the face of the text message, what difference does it make that Jeff O'Driscoll reviewed it? >> I'm not suggesting you can't get the evidence in. I just don't understand why it's coming in through this witness. >> This is the witness we would like to bring it in through. >> I don't know that this witness has foundation to give you the testimony you're asking for. What's the question you're going to ask? I already asked him. I said, "Did you review Eric Richen's um communications the day that he died?" And he said yes. >> Okay. And then what's the next question you're going to ask? >> Is this picture was it involved in what he sent the day he died? That's all I'm asking. >> You just want a yes or a no. >> Yeah. >> I'm not asking him for anything. >> I'm not sure that's even dispute. Go ahead, Mr. Bledworth. >> Let's never come out before on any other witness. >> Okay. But go ahead, Mr. Whatever. >> I I didn't have anything, your honor. >> Okay. Is there any objection to him just saying yes or no to that question? >> If the yes or no to the question of did he review Eric Richen's text messages from the >> I think that's already been answered. Yes or no? >> Yes. Then what's the followup? >> Uh did Eric Richen send a picture as part of those text messages? And so if >> and if detective O'Driscoll says based on my review, he did. Period. >> I still don't know if that is sufficient foundation to admit this. >> Well, I'm not sure it's going to be admitted. I just think they're trying to lay foundation, I guess. Did you want to publish the photograph, Ms. Nester? >> I do want to publish the photograph. >> And tell me why the photograph is relevant. Well, that photograph is already in as part of exhibit 340, >> which >> it's not in, but we've stipulated. >> We've stipulated is coming in next, but I just want to show it's the same picture. That's it. >> And forgive me, you're referring to an exhibit that hasn't yet come in. >> We've stipulated to it. It's about to come in >> through >> O'Driscoll. >> And what is 340? It's the list of all the pictures that were um accessed that morning at 8:35 a.m. >> Well, why don't we just do it in the reverse order then? >> I can do that. >> I mean, we can see on I'm still I still think there's a hearsay problem based on council's explanation. Now, I also think there's a relevancy objection. The photo that we've been discussing, >> the gravel photo. >> The gravel photo was not accessed at 839. It was accessed at 10:42. >> Well, th this is a foundation question, but the qu the premise of the question Miss Netor is seeking to ask is, was this photo among the communications or sent by Eric Richens to Corey Richens on March 3rd? Right. >> Yes, sir. full stop. I don't think that's fairly in dispute, right? And I don't think that's a hearsay issue. I think publication is a hearsay. The the fact that a photo a photo any photo was sent is is fine. I think if we get into the specific photo that was sent there, there's a hearsay problem. >> Are you taking the position that the photo is a statement? Yes. >> Not sure that follows without additional context. Just sending the photo is it's evidence. It's a fact. I'm not sure it's a statement. >> The statement is I just dropped gravel at the Midway mansion. >> Well, I don't think any of that's coming in. It's just the photograph. >> But that's what the photograph says. >> I don't understand. Is there text on the photograph? No, your honor, but but the the the defense has, you know, the defense has as part of their case said that Eric Richens was into the Midway mansion as evidenced by him dropping food. >> I want to come back to what I understand is is being proposed by Miss Esters through this witness. Detective O'Driscoll, did you review Eric Richen's text messages with Corey Richens the day before he died? Yes or no? I understand the answer to be yes. Did he send Corey Richens a photograph as part of those text messages on March 3rd? Yes or no? Yes. Is this the photograph that he sent? Full stop. >> I'm fine with that. The only I think there's a third option. It's not yes or no. It's I don't I don't recall correct. >> Oh, no. Fair enough. I'm not Yeah, I'm not telling you how to testify and I don't know what he'll say. But as long as you don't go beyond that, Miss Netor, >> and as long as you don't make any representations regarding time, date is fine. >> Great. >> Um, then we don't have a foundation problem. We don't have a statement that would be subject to the hearsay rule. I think the low bar regarding relevance is met in as much as the defense seems to be laying foundation or argument to come later were regarding when images and file paths on Miss Richen's phone were accessed. Any other nuances here, Miss Nester? >> I don't think so. >> Do you understand? Do we have a common understanding of the limits of what you can ask detect without drawing another objection? >> Absolutely. >> Do you have an image of just the photograph? >> Um, I do, but I think if it's out of context, he won't. It's too hard for him to I mean, I think it needs >> You can't show the text messages without provoking the hearsay problem. >> No, not to the jury. Just to refresh. >> Oh, that's >> because I think it's got to be He's not going to know. It's just going to be a weird picture. >> Understood. >> Um, should we just go ahead? Are you going to publish the photo to the jury though? >> No. >> Oh, okay. >> So, um, we could just go ahead and admit 340 now because then the next question is going to be, is this the same photo that is in this picture right here? And then we're done. Is this the same photo? >> This is not a question for me. It's a question for Mr. Bworth. >> No, no objection to admitting 340. >> Okay. I don't know that. Now there's the follow on. Is this the same photo? That's that is akin to publishing the photo that brings up the hearsay problem. >> Uh you've made a record regarding the state's position that the photograph by itself is a statement subject to the hearsay rule. I'm I'm not persuaded. Okay. And so, however, I don't know that just admitting 340 without providing the jury >> any testimony to provide foundation for context is going to be helpful. >> Is somebody going to tell him what 340 is? >> I'll do it through him. I'll just do it through him. >> Okay, >> that's fine. We do have one other is if we're resolved with this, I think we're all clear. I know what I can ask, what I can't. I think we're fine. >> Okay. >> Um, can there's another issue. May I bring it up, >> please? >> All right. I really need Officer O'Driscoll to leave the courtroom when we talk about this because it's about specific questions. >> No problem. Detective, if you'd uh take a >> step into the lobby. Please don't talk to anybody while you're out there, sir. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, your honor. Um, I'm doing this out of an abundance of caution um to avoid any potential um I'm trying to be very careful to comply with the court's ruling on the motion and lemonade that or the not the motion and lemonade the the motion to admit the statements of David Norris. Um so >> not >> correct our motion to admit that was denied. Yes. >> Um, so just to make the record, the defense sought in advance to get approval to or actually we gave notice to the state that we intended to call a witness named Mr. Norris, who would testify if called that on an occasion in 2019, I believe in 2019, he had an encounter with Eric Richens where Eric Richens asked him if he had any fentinel. We he had corroboration for the interaction, not the statement, but the interaction with Mr. Richens, specifically the check that Mr. Richens had given him the date it had cleared his checking account and the invoice for the work he had done for him >> or for Cy but >> correct um the court did we the reason we were trying to introduce that statement we were trying to get it through the catchall exception to hearsay >> the residual >> the residual I I'm sorry I call it catchall same thing the residual exception to the hearsay rule which requires a head notice which we did give the state objected to that coming in we had the court ruled upon it, did the analysis under the residual exception, and made a finding that this defense could not call Mr. Norris to the stand to testify because the residual hearsay exception requirements were not met. It is my desire with this witness to ask him the following four questions about his investigation and it touches on Mr. Norris's testimony but it's a separate matter but I just out of abundance of caution I am giving you a heads up. So the first question is this. You discussed with Mr. Bworth yesterday that the way you approached this investigation was to look for evidence based on three possible scenarios. An accidental overdose, a suicide, or a murder. Correct. Question number two. And in order to properly investigate whether there was an accidental overdose, certainly any allegations that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentinel would be potentially relevant and important to look into. Correct. >> Pause there for one second. I got it right. >> I'm sorry. I do have these if you want me to email them to you. >> No, no, it's okay. Just give me a moment. >> No worries. Was it prior allegations that Eric >> Any allegations that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentinel would be potentially relevant and important to look into? Correct. >> Got it. >> And with this is the next question. Within the past few months, did your team of investigators become aware that there was an individual contacting the Summit County Sheriff's Department who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an alleged or about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentinel? Want me to read that again? >> Sure. And within the past few months, did your team of investigators become aware that there was an individual contacting the Summit County Sheriff's Department who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentinel? And then there's one more question. and let me know when you're ready, your honor. >> Share with investigative team. Give me the last clause one more time. >> Who wanted to share with the investigative team information about an incident where Eric allegedly asked someone for fentinel? >> Okay. And the final question is, did you or anyone else connected to the investigative team ever sit down with this individual and talk to them? Did you make any efforts to see if this individual was credible or had corroborating evidence to back up their claims? And that's it. >> Mr. Bl. >> Um, no objection to the first question. objections to the next three. Um the the this is a transparent attempt to circumvent the court's 807 ruling regarding Mr. Norris by casting some sort of inference that what Mr. Norris would have testified to was is admissible. This setup has been long in the making. After the court issued its 807 ruling, Mr. Norris called the Summit County Sheriff's Office. Deputies interviewed him and he said he was calling on behalf of the or he was calling because defense council told him he should call. Maybe we just pause here for a moment. I don't know that we need to go into any of that. I understand part of your objection to be a lack of foundation. >> That is the beginning, your honor. >> I think that's the beginning and the end of the discussion. There's no foundation for the premise of your questions two, three, and four. >> I'm sorry, but I don't understand. And we have been produced a report from the Summit County Sheriff's Department confirming this call was made and confirming that there was no interview of this individual. It goes not to the credibility of the individual. It goes to the credibility of the investigation that they chose never to even speak to him. >> There is no foundation for the premise of your question. It's as if you could make up any set of facts and put them in the question. If there's no foundation, it can't be the premise of the question. >> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by there's no there is there is validation from the state that this call happened. >> It's not that did you interview a person named David Norris. It's the substance that is the premise of the question. There is no foundation for the premise that Eric had a prior history of seeking fennel. But that's not the way the question is worded. The question is worded is someone contacting you asking to to give you information about it and you refuse to interview them. >> That's not the question you asked. Read the whole question. >> In order to properly investigate >> No, no, no. Go to number two. >> That is number two. >> My apologies. And in order to properly investigate whether there was an accidental overdose, certainly any allegations, not facts, not nothing, just an allegation that Eric had a prior history of seeking fentinel would be potentially relevant and important to look into. Correct. >> Let me ask it this way. What would your response be if Mr. Bworth got up and said, "Certainly, detective, you investigated whether Hayden Jeffs had done all the stuff that I've excluded in my ruling regarding Hayden Jeffs." Would you be like, "No problem. You can say that." >> That's a fair question. >> It would be reversible error for me to allow that question. There were two residual exception rulings in this case. Let's be fair about it, >> right? That's absolutely correct. Um, so is there a way if we scrub out the reference to fentinel and we don't get into the specifics of exactly what was said because I understand their concern about that and the court's concern which is why we raised this in advance which is why I'm trying to do the right thing here. >> I appreciate it. Um, if we just said that an individual contacted them with information about an interaction with Eric involving drugs, >> elicit street drugs, >> elicit street drugs and they chose not to investigate it at all. It does go to their they've set forth this hypothesis that well, we eliminated all other possibilities and that's just not true. They didn't eliminate all of their possibilities because they chose not to interview at least one person that clearly would have supported the first hypothesis that he ingested it intentionally. So I that's all I'm trying to get in. I am >> I am trying to get that in. >> You may be trying to get a little bit more in. >> Well, as much as I can possibly get in. >> Fair enough. But I do think it's fair game to say, "Look, you've got someone coming to your office saying he tried to buy drugs for me and I have I want to be interviewed." And they were like, "No, thank you. How I think I'm entitled to get that in and I'm willing to do it in the most ethical, careful, reliable, non-inferential way possible, but I do believe that's fair game. And I I'm open to suggestions. I'll whatever I need to do. >> These four questions are not it. Mr. Bledworth, >> you look like you're about to say something. I'm sorry. >> No, your honor is I understand the status quo is the the court's I guess the court has sustained the state's objection to those questions. >> I have I think what Ms. Nester is trying to ward off is another set of objectional questions that are maybe more general, less specific, some version of probing the bounds of the state's investigation of the charges. >> Your honor, no, it's the same foundational objection, right? This is all to suggest that there is admissible evidence that Eric Richens sought fentinel before and at bottom there is no admissible evidence that he sought fentanyl before and to and I don't think that the there is any good faith basis to suggest suggest otherwise or to suggest that any investigation into it was incomplete because the fact is detectives that Mr. Norris's narrative has been so thoroughly dispatched that there's no good face fa basis to elude to an improper investigation much less that there may that there may be admissible evidence. >> May I respond? Yeah, hear me out for a second. I >> or let me make sure I understand the bounds of the argument here. You said there's no admissible evidence that Argentinian sought fentanyl. But my sense of the evidentiary record so far and the evidentiary record or the universe of admissible evidence that's available is that there is no admissible evidence that Eric Richens ever sought or received narcotics except through a prescriber. Correct. >> Correct. any the only admissible evidence that's already admitted. >> I think it's his knee surgery, right? >> Yes. A 2016 hydrocodone prescription following knee surgery. >> Right. Okay. Very good. Now, by the same token, I believe all admissible evidence of Ms. Richens seeking or receiving narcotics of any kind is already in. Correct. And all is putting it strongly, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> That is to the extent there was any admissible evidence of Ms. Richens seeking fentinol, it's either in or it's not admissible. Let me say it that way. >> Or it would come in in the rebuttal case. >> Understood. Okay. which was the basis among other things of uh not the basis but is related to the court's exclusion of uh the offered statements of Hayden Jeffs to his sister. >> Right. Right. So I do wish to correct Mr. Bworth's statement that we have fully dispatched Mr. Norris's uh proposed testimony. To the contrary, the court was very clear that you were accepting for purposes of your analysis that everything in the affidavit that Mr. Norris provided was true and that you did the analysis or the court, excuse me, the court did the analysis um based on the law of the the hoops you have to jump through to come under the residual exception. And for purposes of your analysis, you did not go into an analysis of whether Mr. Norris's testimony was credible, not credible. You just said, "I'm going to assume for purposes of this ruling that everything in that affidavit is true, and then I'm going to rule on whether it fits the residual exception, and the court went through a very thorough analysis and decided it did not." Um, so I don't think that's a fair statement that he just made that we fully dispatched it like there's nothing behind it. That's that's never been litigated in front of this court, nor have we asked it to be. >> The the difficulty here though is imagine David Norris were on the stand, >> right? >> And you asked him, "Hey, did you ever contact the Summit County Attorney's Office or Sheriff's Office? My apologies." Yeah. He says, "Yes." And then you say, "What did you tell them?" It immediately provokes a hearsay objection that I've already dealt with under my ruling under the residual exception. >> Absolutely. So, and we don't >> if you want to elicit testimony that um did you ever speak to a gentleman named David Norris? >> Yes. And then move on. Fine. But I'm not sure how that's relevant. >> Well, that's that's meaningless to a jury unless I can say, "Was there a gentleman named David Norris who tried to give information that would have supported the first hypothesis?" >> But that's the hearsay problem. >> But it's not being offered for the truth. It's 100% being offered. >> Your honor, if I may, please. It's being offered for the same reason they've gotten in a ton of other hearsay in this case by the impact it has on how they did their investigation. They got that in through Woody. That's how they got in Woody. The Amy and and Katie's statements because it wasn't for the truth of the matter that Cy tried to kill him before. It was how it impacted her investigation from there on out. This is the same exact argument. is how that the fact that that they got that information and chose not to even investigate it, how that impacted the hearer. It is irrelevant for purposes of the the truth and the court can instruct it like you've done over and over and over for their witnesses when we have this exact same argument. >> If that's true, Miss Netor, then the 807 residual exception wouldn't exist and it wouldn't apply. It does apply and so you can't use this argument to undermine that. >> I I know that's why I'm trying not to undermine your ruling. >> Well, that's why I can't the substance of what he told the Summit County Sheriff's Office can't come in. >> And I think I could maybe craft a question where we leave out the the juicy substance and just say there was an avenue that you chose not to investigate. But I I've got to get something in context so the jury understands, hey, you had this road, you chose not to go down it. That was your choice. I appreciate why you want to present this to the jury, but there are limits on both sides of the V about what gets presented to the jury. And those limits are in part defined by the Utah rules of evidence. And this substance cannot come in under the Utah rules of evidence for the same reason that the state could not argue that we want to get in Hayden Jeff's statements to its sister just for the effect upon uh law enforcement in terms of the scope of their investigation. No. Okay. And there's no scenario in which we're going to be allowed to question him about choosing not to investigate this evidence. >> There's no scenario in which it's relevant without the substance of the excluded communications. If a crank from New Jersey, I don't know why I'm picking on New Jersey, but I grew up near New Jersey, called the Summit County Sheriff's Office and said, "I was in Utah on that day and I saw it happen and the Summit County Sheriff's Office chose not to investigate it. would we be having this conversation? >> That's not this circumstance though. >> It is the same though because that evidence has nothing to do here. It's even worse because it's inadmissible. >> It's inadmissible from Mr. Norris's mouth. But I don't think it's inadmissible period in terms of if it was part of an investigation that was ignored or not followed. >> The substance is inadmissible. The fact that they spoke to David Norris as a fact is admissible if it's relevant, but without the substance, it's not relevant. >> We have just a moment. >> Great. I'm not sure. Okay, your honor, I think we've made our record on that and I'll of course respect the court's ruling on that. Let me take a minute. >> Let me just take five minutes. >> Thank you, honor. >> Uh before I take a break, uh Mr. Bworth, anything further >> on this issue? >> No. Yeah, >> Miss Nester, before we take a 5minute break, any other issues before you invite the jury in? >> No, thank you, your honor. >> Mr. Bworth? >> No, sir. >> Okay, I'll be right back. Thank you. >> All right. 2014 UTF 215. need you to take 15 minutes read this case beginning at paragraph 25. This case stands for the proposition that what the defense is proposing to do is required, but it raises the prospect of also allowing the state to rebut the defense's charge of an incomplete or improper investigation by also putting in evidence not for the truth but the for the effect it had upon law enforcement of how they rece received and reacted to Hayden Jeff's statements to his sister. Pause for a second. I need you all to be very thoughtful about this. I can't unring the bell once this information is out. And sitting here at the moment without the benefit of council's argument after reading this case, I think I'd have to let both sides of that story in to make sure that the state's hand estate is not prosecuting with one hand tied behind its back. Mr. Bloodworth, I cut you off. >> Uh, sorry, your honor. Uh, we we looked at this case while you had stepped out. I think in addition to Hayden Jeff's, it would also cause us to revisit the court's decision yesterday regarding Mr. Bon Savage's phone call with an inmate Econison. >> Oh, I don't remember the the detail of that one. Forgive me. Oh, I I think I do. Yeah, a little bit. Uh, now let's talk about foundational requirements. I gave this a little bit of thought after rereading McCull. there is some precision and some technicality into how these questions would need to be asked. For example, Ms. Nester, you wouldn't just be able to put the substance of Mr. Norris's statement in a question and ask whether uh um Detective O'Drriscoll ever followed up on it because you would not have laid foundation that he ever knew about it in the first place. You need to lay foundation about whether or not he ever spoke to David Norris. Yes or no? If no, did anybody ever relate to you that David Norris contacted the Summit County Sheriff's Office? Yes or no? Yes. Okay. After that, what did you do? This information, this statements being made by David Norris to Summit County Sheriff's Office have to come in through a witness with knowledge of them. And I'm not sure Detective O'Driscoll is that guy. By the same token, to the extent the state would want to um ask or show that the investigating officers or the Summit County Attorney's Office investigators uh followed up on statements made by Hayden Jeffs to his sister, Aubrey Jeffs, or uh information received or told by Mr. Bond Savage. They're going to have to call a witness that had personal knowledge of those statements and then lay foundation for what occurred next. We can't skip steps. Your honor agreed the there's a little more to unpack here too. Um be because I I happen to know that Jeff O'Driscoll is not the witness for this. Um we would need time to prepare the witness for this. We also have the problem that >> uh we meaning >> the state >> the state may I ask you just a procedural question before you keep going? >> Yes sir. Uh, imagine that at some point, >> imagine it's not Jeff O'Driscoll as you suggest, >> right? >> And imagine in the defense's case, >> they find or call the witness who received uh the phone call or talked to David Norris or they call David Norris >> and they ask, "Did you call Summit County Sheriff's Office?" >> Yes. What did you tell them? Did they ever follow up with you? >> Yes. I imagine the state's response to this and the state's offering evidence regarding how it responded to information regarding the Hayden Jeff statements and the Nick Bon Savage statements that would come in in the state's rebuttal case. Is that correct? >> Not necessarily, your honor. I mean, we're we haven't rested. I think we would like to get out in front of this >> before a rebuttal case. Um, and while the state has investigated um, David Norris's statements and to to show how they're not credible, the state pulled up on investigating how Norris came about and the state would want to continue that investigation. Uh, I think I know what you're talking about, but in terms of how it came to be that David Norris contacted law enforcement when he did. >> Correct. >> I don't know that I have any authority or interest in ruling. I >> I don't think you I I don't think so. My my only point in mentioning that is it would it would just take a little bit of time and it would be necessary. The other point um I think well the other objection the state has is is under 403 I think in proceeding in this manner is both prejuditial and confusing the jury >> if I let in everything though so Norris Jeff's Bon Savage does that ameliate the >> any unfair prejudice or four or three concerns And when I say let it in, I mean as premise for questions regarding the scope of law enforcement's investigation, not for the >> I appreciate that, your honor. Um >> I tend to agree with you if I let it only one side. It it it's interesting because both that that makes no that assumes that the weight of unfair prejudice or the weight of confusion is equal on both sides. This the state I don't think it is. I think because of the um the complete incredibility of David Norris's testimony and how David Norris came to contact law enforcement that that prejudice and that confusion is much weightier than confusion related to um recorded interviews with Hayden Jeffs while he has counsel and a recorded jail phone call. There is no doubt. >> Doesn't that weigh in the state's favor though? >> No, your honor, because the well the I guess the question is whether it's unfair prejudice or confusion. confusion. It doesn't, you know, David Norris's purport that the the purported effect on law enforcement of David Norrises is even way more confusing than the effect uh the just because the information provided to David Norris um is highly in doubt and would be highly litigated. Whereas the information Hayden Jeffs provided is recorded. There is zero doubt about what he provided and the information that Mick Bun Savage provided is recorded. There is zero doubt. We're not bogging down into some mess of who said what when. uh is when you say the information, you mean the substance of what David Norris told Summit County Sheriff's Office a number of weeks ago. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Because it's changed. It has changed over time. We have affidavit number one from defense, affidavit number two from defense, phone call from David Norris, interview of David Norris. What David Norris says is a moving target and it is a moving target based on when he speaks with defense council. >> Forgive me. What is your understanding of the evidentiary landscape as to how many times David Norris has contacted the Summit County Sheriff's Office? Is it once or more than once? >> I I think he's had two contacts. once um he spoke with a patrol deputy to take kind of the initial well I guess there's once a call into dispatch which was non substantive. >> Okay. >> Then there was an initial contract with a patrol deputy and then there was a contact with the detective. >> Okay. >> Um and then we have the affidavit that he'd submitted that defenses submitted in the 807 litigation. But those were submitted here, right, as part of the 807 litigation. Those ever go to Summit County Sheriff's Office. >> I I don't know one way or the other. >> If it's no, then those don't get shown to the jury. Right. >> Just to clarify, they weren't affidavit. We just laid out the statement of facts in our motion. >> Okay. >> It's a profer. >> I'm familiar with what you're referring to. I'm a little less clear on that. >> Sorry. Profer is yeah profer is the >> I'm not sure the profer has any impact here. I'm not sure the jury would ever be made aware of the substance of profer they as I understand it on dur would only be made aware of evidence related to the substance of what Mr. Norris told investigators and law enforcement. >> Your honor the profers do tie into this in that you know the question would be did this inform your investigation? Um yes, we considered all of his statements um >> to include the defense profers in in determining that they were just flatout incredible. >> Okay. >> So that goes to kind of the confusion argument. So, in the 403 analysis, your honor, I do not think the weight of unfair prejudice um to the defense is the same as the weight of well any any of the 403 factors. I don't think the weight is the same for the state and the defense. >> And to put a a finer point on it, you're concerned that the jury would be confused about who said what when. It's jury confusion that I need. >> It's jury confusion, >> right? And so what is it you believe they would be confused about? >> I think they would I think they would be confused about the effect on law enforcement, which is really what this grounds in, right? This is the the effect on the hero, the effect on law enforcement. >> Okay? And and I think those waters would be so muddied in the case of Norris, whereas those waters are crystal clear in the case of Hayden Jeffs and Nick Bon Savage. Um and the and and the the waters are muddied as it relates to Mr. ignores um very deliberately and that and and and I don't know that I suspect the purpose is to confuse the jury. Right. >> As you sit here today, do you have you identified the witness that would testify regarding investigators knowledge of and response to statements made by David Norris? Um, I know. Yeah, I I don't remember the name. I know the patrol officer. I think I know who he talked to. I think I know who the detective talked to. It also involves my office, right? And um, so >> you would be able to call an investigator, not a lawyer. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Um, so probably three witnesses. >> Okay. Um, >> and then who are the witnesses you would call to testify regarding the state's knowledge of and response to uh Hayden Jeff's statements to his district or I mean I I I appreciate that Hayden Jeff spoke directly to uh law enforcement in a recorded interview, >> right? That's what we would have to get into. What did you understand? Why? With what level of detail? >> Um, which is extraordinary. Here's >> in there, as I understand it, the state's position would be, well, if we're not admitting it for the truth, judge, there's no Crawford problem. So, the recorded interview comes in >> 100%. >> Okay. >> Um, and the same thing, by the way, with the Nick Bon Savage jail call, right? That that entire jail call comes in lock, stock, and barrel. If if um you know if if we're going to mention it, we're going to mention it all. >> Oh, I understand. >> And then the Can I just say one one final thing on the unfair prejudice? I think the court in in considering the weight of the various um prejudices the the prejudice with admitting Norton >> versus Norris >> Norris sorry versus the prejudice of the Hayden Jeffs and Bon Savage. I think the court uh needs to con well I guess in the probative value uh part of that analysis I think the court needs to consider kind of all of the corroborating evidence and the fact that David Norris's um allegation assertion is not at all probitative because there is nothing that corroborates corroborates it and it is inconsistent with all the other evidence in the case. Whereas the Bon Savage statement and the Hayden Jeff statement is highly corroborated with all with a ton of admitted already evidence in this case. >> And just so we're clear, when you're talking about probit of value in this context, we're talking about probit of value to the defense's theory of incomplete investigation and probit of value to the state's response to that theory. >> Correct. under the 403 balancing. >> I understand your position. >> Okay. >> Ms. Lewis, Ms. Nester, Mr. Ramos. This is high stakes poker. >> Yes, it is. I was just going to ask you um if we could have a little time to meet with our client next door. She's got some decisions to make about that. I want to make sure that you explain to her that if you're successful in persuading the court that the substance of David Norris's statements should come in not for their truth, but for their effect upon law enforcement and investigators, for their probitative value to the defendant's theory of incomplete or uh incompetent investigation. that by extension, my view is that I need the allow the state to respond to that theory by among other things admitting evidence of their knowledge of in response to statements made by Hayden Jeffs and Mr. Bond Savage, not for their truth, but to show what they were doing and how they were doing it. Can I just get a clarification on the bond savage? I want to make sure I'm on the same page. >> Why don't we just get a profer of it, Mr. Bloodworth, so we're all hearing the same thing at the same time? >> Yes, your honor. In a March 4th, 2022 jail call between Mr. Bon Savage and an inmate in Gunnison. Um, they're discussing purchasing it a PlayStation controller and they're discussing uh who who's going to pay for it, kind of how to get the money for it. And Nick Bon Savage says to the inmate something like um Carmen will cover it. She just made money selling fentinel. >> Okay. So this is already in other than we substituted the word fentanyl >> elicit street drugs. >> Right. And that's a recording. >> It is a recording >> as is Hayden Jev's interview with law enforcement. >> And the the upshot profer of that interview and and this occurs many times. There is pages of transcript on this subject, but the upshot of the profer is that >> Corey Richens asked me to buy her fentinel. I explained to her you know, in really colorful language how dangerous it is. She wants to stay away from it. Who on earth would want fentinel? Um, and then uh there's a second phone call where she calls back and asks for uh the Michael Jackson stuff and they get into a propell discussion. >> Right. >> Okay. How much time do you want, Miss uh Nester? We have 30 minutes. It's >> fine. >> Thank you, your honor. >> Anything else before we take a recess, Mr. Bworth? >> No, your honor. >> Ms. Nester. >> No, sir. >> We'll be in recess until 10:30. >> Aller with Ms. Richards. How does the defense want to proceed? >> Um, thank you, your honor. Thank you for the break. Uh, we appreciated that. Um so we under we have reviewed the case. We clearly understand the court's ruling that if any of it comes in all of it comes in. We get that. Um we also understand and appreciate that the court is going to require proper foundation. Um and we're not skipping any steps. Um, we accept the state's representation in good faith that officer O'Driscoll, he's out still. He is not the foundation witness because he is not the individual who communicated with um Mr. Norris. Um and we will if we proceed with this line of questioning and we decide to introduce this evidence we will do it through the proper foundational witnesses which we accept as not him. So to avoid confusion now since it's not him, we will wait and not ask the questions that he doesn't h because it it's like you said, there's no way to ask the question without introducing the substance. We couldn't figure out how to do that. So we're going to wait until we have a foundational witness and then we will proceed that way if we can lay a foundation. >> Okay. Um, >> and if if we decide to go forward with that evidence, >> I appreciate that. If you make that ultimate decision, >> we'll give everyone a heads up. >> I appreciate that. And one of the reasons I would need that is to make sure I give defense an opportunity to state on the record or at least summarize on the record their strategic balancing of the risks and benefits so that there is a record of that going forward. I appreciate that and I think that's probably a good idea for everyone. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So, Mr. Bworth, because the defense will not be opening the door to any portion of its incomplete investigation theory uh related to David Norris through Detective O'Driscoll. I don't believe the state would be permitted to respond to it yet. Is that your view of it? >> That is my view of it, your honor. >> Okay. So, as a matter of status quo, we are going to proceed with additional cross-examination of Detective O'Driscoll. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Did we reach an Oh, I'm sorry. >> Could we just go ahead and um Well, I can just do a three. I think we just thought I'd just ask him about 340. I'm sorry and I apologize. I withdraw. >> I was about to ask, did we reach an end point regarding 340 and the photograph? >> So, the plan is to introduce the stipulated 340, which we'll get in, and then I will ask him if he can identify the photo. If he can't, he can't, but I'm going to try. >> Okay. >> Um, and I'm not going to get into the substance of any of the bubbles, and I'm not going to introduce the bubbles or any of that. >> Okay. All the only thing I'm going to display to the jury will be the picture on 340 and then I may have it side by side in front of O'Driscoll so he can compare and refresh on the one that's not getting introduced. >> And to the extent you ask him about whether it was sent as part of text messages between >> only the date >> Eric and Corey on the date, it's a yes or no question. >> Correct. just on the date, not the time because I don't want to confuse anyone or require UTC time or any of that conversation and the time really is irrelevant to us. >> Okay, Mr. Bworth, anything further on that? >> No, your honor. >> All right. Are we ready for the jury? >> Yes, your honor. >> Miss Nester, >> we are your honor. >> Please. Let's do this. 23. Okay. Okay. Okay. Please have a seat as you come in. >> All right. Have a seat. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with additional cross-examination of Detective O'Driscoll by the defense. Detective, let's have you come in the courtroom. Detective, please step in front of Britney. We'll get you sworn back in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give in the matter before the court to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth subject to the pains and penalties of perjury? >> I do. >> Would you have a seat? >> Miss Nester, please proceed. >> Thank you, your honor. May I please the court? Good morning, Detective O'Driscoll. >> Good morning, Miss Nester. >> I believe when we stopped yesterday, we were talking about the GIFs or GIFs. Um, and I want to start by um having you review a document that's been agreed to by the parties. It is exhibit number 3-40. And at this point, your honor, we're asking to admit it per stipulation of the parties. >> So the witness can see 3-40. And do we want to publish now, council? >> Please, >> Mr. Bledworth, >> no objections. >> States exhibit 3-40 is admitted. >> All right. And this was talked about when I believe it was Mr. Costraimos, I think it's all blurring together now, um, was on the stand. But these this is the the group of all the gifs or the gifs that were in kind of a group um and included the ones that were accessed on the morning after the police left Miss Richen's home after Mr. Richens passed. Do you remember the testimony about that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um can we go to the page that shows the gifs in question? Maybe blow that up at the top. Okay. So, I think that's two of them. One of them is from I guess the movie Dumb and Dumber and the other one is is our president. Um and I think there was a third one, but it's yeah, Mr. Spy and um in a TV program, right? And those are the three GIFs that were talked about. And if you blow up the time that they were accessed, they all were accessed at 8:293 a.m. on March the 4th. That's the day that Mr. um Richens was found deceased. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. And um I know we've already heard the testimony that these are what we call orphaned GIFs. You can't really tell which text they came with and exactly when they were sent or who they were sent to or by. All we know is that they were somehow accessed at that point by her phone. Correct. >> That was the testimony, Mr. Kraimos. Yes. >> Okay. Can you pull up another one of the photos? Um, that is the picture from the house. That's it. All right. This is another picture that was accessed at that exact moment at 8:29. And um can you blow the picture up a little bit? Do you recognize what that is? That photograph? >> It's the legacy home. >> It's the legacy home. Right. And was there another photo that was accessed that same morning? Also orphaned. Can you find that picture? It's right above it, I think. There we go. Can you blow that picture up a little bit? >> Thank you. All right. And is that also just a closer up view of the legacy mansion? >> It appears. So, it's very blurry on my screen. >> It is. I think it is blurry. And then can you back back out and show the time that one was accessed? According to this same group of photos, that one appears to have been accessed at 10:42 a.m. the same morning. That's what this uh document says. Yes. >> Okay. Now, if we could put just on the witnesses screen um exhibit um J I think it's 11 not for the publication. Yeah, your honor. >> Understood. >> All right. And can you um take just a moment and blow that up just a little bit so he can read it better. All right. Just take a second and scroll through that and tell me if that refreshes your recollection about any documents you reviewed about Eric's final communications before he passed. >> Your honor, objection. There's there's there's no foundation to get to whether or not his recollection requires refreshment of >> Yeah, let's pause there. Would you lay a little bit of foundation before we get there? >> Sure. And it requires us to go back to yesterday. So yesterday I had asked you right before we stopped if you had as part of your investigation reviewed the final communications of Eric right before he passed away and you mentioned you had. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. Based on that, if you could refresh, um, do you recall the communications you reviewed that day? >> Not all of them. Some of them. Yeah. >> Can we then please blow up this document in front of him and see if this refreshes your recollection as to what you reviewed? >> Mr. Bledworth, the witness doesn't have it yet. Any objection to that question? Your honor, I think the objection foundation I think there requires additional foundation. >> I think the question pending is are these among the things he reviewed. Correct. >> Maybe I misunderstood the pending. >> Yeah, >> that's the question. >> So I think >> can we back up a step? Maybe I'll catch up. >> Sure. Miss Nester, ask your last question one more time, please. Are these texts that are before you part of what you reviewed from Eric's final communications on his phone? >> Go one step before that. He hasn't seen these yet. He doesn't currently have them in front of him. >> Did you do you recall all of the communications you saw that day? Um when you were reviewing Eric's final communications, >> all the texts from his phone? Yes. >> On the day that he the day before he died? >> Yes. >> I don't remember all of them. I remember some of them. >> So then would you please look at this document and see if it refreshes your rec recollection and as to whether these were included in his communications? >> Any objection, Mr. Ble? >> No. >> Okay. Uh the witness can now see what you're referring to, Miss Nester. >> Thank you, honor. And can you go down just one more and maybe blow that up a little? That photo. Does this refresh your recollection? These communications of Eric's and Corey's the day he died. >> These are uh timestamped March 3rd. That's not the day he died, but the the day before he died. >> Totally correct because he died in we think the early morning hours of the fourth, right? >> Yeah. He was pronounced deceased on the 4th. >> Okay. >> Yeah, sorry. Objection. Foundation is the meaning of died, right? He was pronounced dead on. >> I think the witness and the uh questioning lawyer have a common understanding here. Overruled. >> Thank you, your honor. Okay. So, were these included in what you reviewed in the communications between Ari and Eric and Corey on the 3rd of March? >> Yes. >> All right. And this photograph, if you could blow that up, >> your honor, objection. His recollection has been refreshed. the I think the exhibit can now >> I'm not >> that aside. >> I'm not publishing it. I'm just got one more question about the photo and then I'm done. >> Uh I'll take it down. Ask your question. If we need to refresh again, you can. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Wait, did you tell me I could ask the question? >> Yeah, I took the photo down. Ask whatever you're about to ask. >> Yes. Okay. >> Um does the photo that you just refreshed your recollection with match the same photo that we just saw in 340? That was the corner of the Midway mansion. >> Your honor, the photo is still up on my screen and the witness is >> My apologies. >> Staring at it. >> Sorry. >> Is it the same photo, sir? >> This one that we just saw that was enlarged. You're asking if that's the same as the one in the text message. >> Does it match the one that we just put on the screen for the jurors that came with all those other pictures that morning? >> Yes. >> Thank you. That's all I have. Done with that. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm not. Can I have just one moment, your honor? >> Of course. One more step. If we could go back to 340, which has been admitted, and pull up some additional gifts that were accessed at that same time. If we could pull those up, please. >> Sure. >> There you go. >> Okay. So, there's the picture on the bottom left hand corner of the corner of the Midway Mansion House, right? >> Yes. >> And that one was accessed at 10:42 a.m. the morning of the 4th. >> Yes. And the one with the champagne is also that exact same time. >> Yes. >> And the one with the farmer is that exact same time. >> Yes. >> And we know for sure that the one on the bottom left was sent the day before. >> Because we just looked at that, right? And you refreshed your recollection. >> Yeah. I don't know if the part of the extraction that we're looking at right now is saying that that's where that came from. I don't know if that's the same file path, but that photo is the same. >> Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we can take that down now. All right. I also want to talk to you about Sorry, startle me. I also want to talk to you about the Google searches that um were testified about here that um were on M. Richen's phone or computer or both. Did you review those as part of your investigation? >> Uh, yes. >> All right. And were you able to determine um dates on all of those searches when they were made? >> Uh, I don't believe so. Um, yeah, that would be a question for Mr. Coachos. I remember seeing the the uh searches and the the text of the searches, but I believe he testified that uh that there wasn't a time stamp associated with them and that they differed from the action in the phone that showed that a link was actually clicked on from one of those searches. >> Okay, perfect. >> And I believe those had timestamps. >> Okay, the links, but maybe not the searches. >> Correct. >> Thank you for that clarification. Um, and you agree that as of April the 13th of 2022, approximately a month and a few days after Eric passed away, that Ms. Richen's house was searched and she was detained in a police vehicle. Right. >> Objection, your honor. >> Foundation. >> Foundation. Yeah. >> Justain. Lay a little foundation. Are you aware that there was a search conducted on her house on April 13th >> on Miss Rich's house? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And are you aware that while that search was being conducted, Miss Richens was temporarily detained in a police vehicle for a period of time? >> Objection, your honor, calls for a legal conclusion. >> Uh overruled on that. >> Go ahead. >> Uh I think the word detained is the the problem there. I think there's been dispute over whether or not she was detained, but um she was spoken to. She was asked to wait in uh law enforcement's vehicle until the lead detective could come speak to her about what was going on with the search. >> Okay. So, the searches on the website, fair to say that all of those searches are believed to have occurred after April 13th of 2022. >> I don't know. Like I said, I I don't know that there were timestamps on the on the searches, so I I can't be sure. Did you ever interview any of Corey's family or friends and ask them if they were responsible for any of those or if they'd ever seen Corey do it or who did those searches? >> No. >> Okay. All right. I'd like to talk about the orange notebook for just a moment. Um, we pulled up, do we have the um, do you have that orange notebook exhibit? I can't remember the number of it. Courts indulgence for just a minute. I have the number. I've got it. I'll tell you. Just one moment. I'm sorry, your honor. It's hard to keep all these exhibits straight. Uh, can we put up exhibit 2-66R? It's admitted, your honor. >> Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Before we do that, can we put up exhibit Yeah. 2-66R. That's correct. Oh, we don't have the They redacted part of it and we don't have that. >> Scott 2-66R, please. >> Would he be so kind? I don't want to accidentally put something up that was redacted. >> My apologies. We'll fix that. >> It's okay. One moment, please. Scott, if we do our normal dance, I'd appreciate it. Yes. 2-66R publish. >> Yes, please, your honor. >> There you go. >> All right. And can we uh that's the what we like to call the orange notebook, right? Because it's like in an orange kids school notebook, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And can you fast forward Katie to until I tell you to stop? Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Okay. Right there. Um, and can you blow out the bottom third of the page? All right. So, this orange notebook that was recovered from the house, you don't have any knowledge about the circumstances under which it was prepared, do you? >> Or why it was written? >> I do not. >> And you don't know when it was written. No, I don't. >> And this was seized the day Miss Richens was arrested, which was May 8th, 2023. Correct. >> I believe so. Yeah. >> So, over a year after Eric's death, >> right? >> Correct. >> All right. And here on there, there is an entry that says on March the 22nd, can you highlight that please, Katie? Corey starts counseling. Do you see that? >> Did you need to say yes? >> Yes. Sorry. >> Um did you make any did you take any steps to verify if that actually was the date she started doing mental health counseling? Um I I didn't learn anything about her counseling from interviews that we conducted. We did get uh Cory's medical records and I don't remember if uh uh mental health counselor was part of those. Um but that's possible. And I imagine as a um I forgot the word you used as a serious crime investigator, homicide investigator, detective, death scene investigator. You've dealt with a lot of victims and family members who've been traumatized by a death and have required counseling. Is that fair? Um, my involvement with victims doesn't usually go that far to know whether they sought counseling or not. Um, we refer them to the victim's advocate service and they're much more equipped to help them with that. >> Great. And have you ever heard of what's called trauma journaling? >> No. >> Do you know what that is? >> No. >> Okay. >> Your honor, maybe we approach. >> I'll I'll move on. I'm done with that. >> Are we approaching or moving on? Why? We're moving on from the subject matter. No need to approach. >> Got it. >> We are moving on from the subject matter. >> Very good. >> Um, all right. You also talked about the fact that you found it, I think you said suspicious, but I don't want to put that word in your mouth, but it was of significance to you that Carmen had placed a Mr. Richen's obituary on her memory wall or her inspiration wall or whatever. Is that right? >> I noticed it. Yeah. I mean, it was uh it was something that caught my eye. >> Did you happen to notice if there were any other obituaries right around it or next to it? >> No, I didn't particularly particularly notice. >> Can we pull up exhibit um >> Yes, thank you. The second one, 8:16R, I think. Oh, it's 15. Okay. 8:15R. And that's in your honor, if we could publish it. >> I can't see it yet, Katie. >> Oh, you don't have it. My apologies. >> Oh, that one's got things going. >> Would you help us out? Thank you. Let's see. This is 8-15R. Let me just make sure this is the one you intended, Ms. Netor. >> That is the one. And Katie does have this one if you wanted to switch back. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because I'm gonna need her to blow it up. Can we switch it back to her, please? I'm so sorry, girl. >> They just There was a recent version where they blurred a lot of children's faces out and stuff. Okay. Do you remember this picture we introduced of Mr. Richen's obituary on her memory wall? >> Yes. >> Can you please blow that up, Katie, to show what's right beside it or right under it? Do you see another um in loving memory in right below it? >> Yeah, it looks like a like a program pamphlet from a funeral. >> Okay. All right. Also, the Cene hat I believe that was on that wall that you noticed. Um, did you do any investigation to determine if Carmen actually I'm sorry if um Yes. if Carmen actually did any work for CE? >> Yeah, based on our conversations, she never worked for Cene as a company. Um, she did work on the Ridgen's house. She interacted with Eric, but um she was never employed by CE. >> Okay. All right. I also want to show you a text. Um, as part of your investigation of reviewing um, text between Eric and Corey, Katie, if you could pull up exhibit 2, I believe it's nine 2-3. Thank you. That's it. Before you look at that, um, do you recall, uh, trying to determine, investigating whether or not Corey was aware prior to Eric's death that at least some, maybe not the house, but at least some of the assets that belonged to them or to Eric were shielded under some kind of a trust. if she was aware of that before he passed. >> Yeah, that was part of our investigation. >> All right. And did you review conversations she had with people about that and and texts about that and things about that? >> I didn't have any recorded conversations that she had had. Um I guess it depends on the timing that you're asking about. >> Okay. I'd like to refresh your recollection and see if you look at these texts if it reminds you if this is one of the things you looked at in trying to make that determination. Okay. >> Okay. >> Can you blow that up? It's exhibit 2-3D as in delta. And just let him look at all of them, please. Just slowly give him plenty of time to read. Um, can you go back up? I think we're missing that that one. There you go. The next page. Does this refresh your recollection? Do you remember looking at this set of texts between Corey and Eric? >> No, I didn't have time to finish reading it. >> Oh, sorry. Keep keep letting him read it. Okay. >> Does that refresh your recollection? Do you remember reviewing this this um series of texts between Corey and Eric relating to the trust? >> I don't remember. And the context of those messages, I can't say that that's what they're talking about. >> Okay. So, this does not refresh your recollection. Okay, courts indulgence for just one moment. >> May I approach the seat? No, that's not true. Let me just look at looking back. We're working on something, but I'm going to um ask a couple more, move back, and then we may come back to it once she's done looking. Um, so was it your understanding without saying anything anyone told you when you were conducting your investigation, did you become aware that Corey knew of at least some portion of the tr some aspect of the trust being created before Eric passed? Objection, your honor. More foundation otherwise it's based on hearsay. >> The foundation objection is sustained based upon the witness's uh prior answer. If you can start smaller, maybe build up to it. There may be some foundation here. Did you interview people, look at documents, um, review texts to try to inform your investigation as to whether Corey knew that Eric had created a trust for at least some portion of their assets prior to his death. >> Uh, I reviewed information about the trust um from several different sources. Everything that I reviewed suggested that she didn't she was not aware of uh how the trust worked or the consequences of the trust. >> Totally fair. I think you're right about that. But was she aware that it existed? >> Objection, your honor. Same foundation. Objection. >> Uh overruled based upon his prior answer. You can answer, detective. >> Um I can't think of a specific instance, but I think there was some information that might have suggested that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, now I want to talk about Valentine's Day. You were here when M. Staking testified to the jury that um in a conversation with a bunch of friends, there was some joking references made to Corey wanting to poison Eric and then Eric stating he had an allergic reaction and used an epipin. You heard that testimony, right? >> Objection, your honor. Foundation, that's not what happened. I think your uh recitation of Miss Dings's testimony was correct until the last either sentence or clause. >> Okay. Did you become aware that at least in some context there was a discussion on val about the Valentine's Day incident relating to Eric taking an EpiPen using an EpiPen? mistaking from my memory testified that there was um a comment made by Eric in a joking manner that Cory had tried to poison him and then she said that Cory's explanation was that it was an allergic reaction >> and that he used an EpiPen, right? Didn't she say that was the very last thing she said? I think >> I think so. >> Okay. So, did you do any investigation into whether or not Eric was treated regularly for allergies? >> Yes. And in fact, he had an allergy doctor. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And he had an EpiPen device in the master bathroom that was recovered during the first search. >> Uh, probably. I know that there were some located in the refrigerator on one of the searches, epipens, that is. Did you ever um investigate whether Eric discussed this allergic reaction with his doctor, his allergy doctor? >> I believe one of our investigators contacted the allergy doctor and conducted an interview. I don't remember what the results or or contact content of that interview was. >> Did you determine what Eric was allergic to? Was he allergic to avocados or wheat or peanut oil? Do you know? >> From what I remember being told by the investigator that had that conversation, it was like seasonal allergies, um, trees, grasses, dander, things like that. >> Okay. Were you ever able to confirm that Eric ever sought any medical treatment for what allegedly happened to him on February 14th? just that in his text message he mentioned that he might go to the hospital. >> Uh so I don't know for sure if he did but he was feeling bad enough that he thought he might need to. >> Were you ever able to confirm that he did? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. I want to also talk to you about Miss Susan Kohler. Do you know who Susan Kohler is? >> Yes. >> Who is Susan Kohler? >> She's uh an associate of Carmen Lobers. She worked for Dorene Corey cleaning houses with Carmen Lober. >> Okay. And in the course of your investigation, what did you determine if anything was the role that Susan Kohler played um with respect to this case? We determined that she sold um I think the number was 15 to 20 Roxy's or prescription um narcotic pain pills to Carmen at the request of Miss Richens. >> Okay. And was Miss Susan Kohler offered immunity like Croer and Carmen Lober were? >> Objection, your honor. Do you know >> what's the basis of the objection, Mr. Bledworth? Or do you need to approach >> relevancy? Approach for one second. The relevance objection is sustained. Miss Nester, please proceed. >> Did you ever find any evidence or suggestion that anything Susan Kler sold to Carmen Lobber contained fentinyl? We found a bag of loose uh I believe they were hydrocodone pills uh in a in the uh mudroom walkway cabinet in the house. Um they were tested. They did not contain fentanyl. Thank you. You also testified, I think yesterday, that shortly before Eric passed away, he went on a hunting trip to Mexico. We talked about that a little bit, right? >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Was there any effort made to try to track Eric Richen's phone movements while he was in Mexico during that time period? >> I don't believe we were able to get any kind of GPS uh location data from Eric's phone. I think the the location data came from call detail records uh as was demonstrated by Mr. Cooimos. >> Okay. And you also reviewed the phone calls. Well, strike that. I'll strike that, your honor. Okay, I think I'm almost done. If I can just confer with council, I'm going to wrap it up. Anything else? Anything else? All right, we're almost done. So, just to recap, a couple of days of testimony that got interrupted a lot. Um, this investigation has now extended for a period of over four years, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And during that four years period of time, as recently as less than a month ago, you were still issuing search warrants. Is that right? Yes. >> And there were a total of at least 10 or 10 searches by law enforcement of Ms. Richen's home. Is that right? >> There were 10 search warrants issued. Yeah. >> And >> or around 10. >> You heard that there's also uh at least five multi-day searches by a private investigator. Is that right? >> I don't remember if it was 5 days. He he said a couple days. And the agencies that were involved in this case were the Summit County Sheriff, right? >> Correct. >> The medical examiner's office. >> They're not a law enforcement agency. >> Well, they have investigator, right? She testified here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They're a civilian investigator. >> Fair. Um, also there was a private investigator that was involved in this case and communicated with you and provided information. >> No, he was involved in the civil case. >> Did he provide you information? He provided our office information. I never talked to him personally. >> All right. Um the DEA was involved in this case at least briefly. >> Um they never took any official action. Uh they they well I should restate that they assisted us with um forensic tools. Okay. Like call detail records and things like that. >> Homeland Security agent or I'm sorry, US Postal Service agent. Was that one of the searches? Right. Yeah, I was aware of that. >> Um, we've heard, I believe that we're over 45 witnesses now in this trial. Is that right? >> I haven't been counting. >> And in all of that, we have no murder weapon. Like, you haven't found anything that was connected to Eric's death. No fentinel in the house. Correct. >> There was a boatload of fentanyl in his stomach that came out of the house with him. >> Other than this, what's in his stomach? Did you find anything else that had fennel in it? >> No. >> Okay. You can't say how the fentinel was administered, right? >> Orally. >> Besides orally, >> that's all I know is that he took it orally. >> We don't know exactly when it happened and what time of night or morning. >> We know a time range. >> Okay. You can't say the dosage that was ingested, right? One pill, two pill, 20 pills. elicit fentanyl does not come in dosages. >> Okay. You can't say what was ingested on Valentine's Day at all. Correct. >> Fentanyl is definitely ingested. Oh, I'm sorry. On on Valentine's Day. >> Yes, on Valentine's Day. >> Uh, no. We don't have any kind of medical examiner's report on the contents from that day. >> And on insurance fraud, um, we have not heard any testimony about any representations that Corey Richens made to her insurance company. Have we? >> Objection, your honor. >> If you'd put a word to it. >> Foundation. What? >> Well, foundation also probably then hearsay. Would you approach for one second. Uh, states objections are overruled. If you would restate that question if you can. Exactly. >> And we've not heard any testimony in this case about statements or representations Corey made to her insurance company. Correct. not not statements. We've heard evidence about it. >> Okay. And with respect to the forgery count, we've not heard any testimony one way or the other whether Eric gave Corey permission to sign his name on documents, have we? >> I don't think that's required to meet the forgery statute. Have we heard anything about that? Do you know one way or the other whether Eric allowed Corey to sign his name on documents as a married couple? >> No, but that's that's still signing someone else's name, even if they give you permission, purporting it to be somebody else's signature. >> Okay. Well, the judge is going to instruct the jury on what the law is about that. But what I'm asking you is as the investigator, do you have any knowledge one way or the other if Eric ever said to her, "Hey, it's okay with me. Sign my name. I don't have time to deal with it." >> I don't know. >> And in fact, what we have heard is that he did give her at least one power of attorney at some point years ago. Right. >> Objection. Well, not objection. May we approach? Sure. Thank you. Okay, I'll withdraw that question, your honor. Um, and you were here when Mr. Throck Morton, the handwriting expert, testified and you heard him say that he could not say that Corey Richens was who signed that document. Did you hear him say that? I heard him say that it was probably >> probably not Eric. >> Probably not Eric, >> but he could not say that it was signed by Corey. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. I think that's it. I appreciate your patience. Thank you, detective. Thank you, your honor. We tender the witness, >> Mr. Bloodworth, within the scope of cross, please. >> Detective O'Driscoll, in this case, um, are you the lead investigator among many investigators? Yeah, it's a large team. I've had a lot of help. >> Does your job in part involve coordinating the activities of all the other sheriff's office investigators? >> Yes. >> And are you the lead investigator for the sheriff's office as opposed to the county attorney's office? >> Correct. I have no authority over what the prosecutor's uh investigator does. And does the county's Well, you may have just answered this, but does the county attorney's office have its own investigation capability and authority? >> Yes. >> Is it your job as lead investigator to be omnisient regarding every investigative detail in this case to include details of the county attorney's investigation? >> No, I can't know every single detail. as defense knows terabytes of information. >> And in early 2023, was your personal investigative focus on determining the source of the fentinil that caused Eric Richen's death? >> Yes, because like I said at the beginning, uh I came into the investigations division as a narcotics officer before I became the lead investigator on this case. That was our focus is investigating drug related crimes. >> In early 2023, did the sheriff's office have a digital forensics capability even remotely close to the capabilities of Mr. Coto Deimos? >> No, that's why we hired him. >> And in early 2023, did the sheriff's office have any forensic accounting capability whatsoever? >> In which year? Which date did you say? early 2023. >> Uh they had a little I mean how early? Not until March and April. >> Well, let me ask you >> January. Zero >> and any forensics accounting capability close to that of Brooke Carrington? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did you say forensic accounting? >> Forensic accounting. >> I'm sorry. I I misheard. I thought you said um digital forensics. No, the sheriff's office has no experts in forensic accounting. And is is part of the reason that they have no forensics accounting experts and minimal digital forensics experts because we're you you have a small office, right? >> Yeah, it's relatively small. Did the county attorney's office become involved in this case in early May of 2023 when it charged Corey Richards? >> Yes, we we only met with the prosecutors about a week before to give them our probable cause information. Subsequent to charging Miss Richens, did the county's attorney county attorney's office engage Mr. Coochimos and Miss Carrington? >> Yes. >> And is Mr. Coocheos the investigator who analyzed the digital forensics including cell tower mapping and cell phone data? >> Yes. And was it Miss Carrington that investigated and analyzed the forensic accounting, including the closing on the Midway mansion? >> Yes. >> And does the state provide the material from each of their investigations to the defense in discovery? >> As far as I know, yes. Do you recall in cross-examination when defense council picked a sentence from a May 2023 interview of Carmen Lobber where it was either you or Detective Maynard told Carmen Lober that she was something like the biggest piece of the puzzle? >> Yes, I remember that. >> What was the context of that comment? Uh she said something about uh can we just lay out all the information, all the pieces in front of us? Um because we were trying to establish a timeline >> and we told her you're the biggest piece. You're the biggest part of the information that we don't know. >> She had the information. >> Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. And and did that context involve a piece of the drug purchase timeline rather than a piece of this whole giant case? >> Correct. the the timeline of her involvement, not necessarily the entire case. >> And did that interview predate any information on uh the forensic accounting? >> Yes. And >> we didn't even get into that until well after. >> And did it predate any of Mr. Kotch Demos's investigation? >> Yes. >> And did it predate your understanding of Cy Richen's relationship with Josh Gman? Yes. >> Do you recall whether that empty 2016 hydrocodone bottle that went with Eric Richen's body to the medical office medical examiner's office was discarded by the medical examiner's office in August of 2022? >> Back to hearsay. >> Please lay some foundation sustained. Do you recall what happened with the empty 2016 hydrocodone bottle? >> Need my objection. >> Uh, detective, it's a yes or no. Start there. >> Yes. >> How do you know what happened with the 2016 empty hydrocodone bottle? >> I was told um by other investigators that they're >> Ojection. sustained on hearsay. Okay. >> Did you or Detective Maynard give Carmen Lobber a ride to anywhere other than Wasach County Drug Court or her attorney's office? >> Uh just here to this this building >> to this building >> to meet with prosecutors or or talk with her attorney. They're here. Can investigators force someone to anyone to speak with them if that person does not want to speak with them? >> No. >> Can investigators seize someone's cell phone without a warrant based upon probable cause? >> No. Has to be consent or a warrant. At any time, have you believed that the walk the dog letter gave you probable cause to seek a warrant to seize Ronald Darden's cell phone? >> No, it didn't contain enough information for me to have gotten a warrant. >> Did your investigation determine that the epipens recovered from the Richen's home were for one of the Richen's children? >> Yes. The GIF image, the one with Kevin Spacy that says, "Idiots, idiots everywhere." Is that from the TV show House of Cards? >> From my understanding, yes. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. Is he finished? We have no further questions. Thank you. >> May we release this witness? >> Yes, your honor. >> Mr. Bledworth. >> Yes, your honor. >> Detective Badrriscoll, you are free to go. You are released from any subpoena. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bworth, >> your honor, the state has a stipulation to admit. I don't even think we have to publish it. So, if the state could I think we've marked it as 865, we'll admit that now. >> Okay. Can I see it for a moment? Please. Uh, do you want me to give the Muji second stipulation of fact preamble and read this to the jury or do you want to just admit it? >> Your honor, I think if we can just admit it now during jury instructions when the court would instruct on that, we can read this. >> We'll have a discussion about whether to convert this into a stipulation of fact instruction when the time comes. >> Right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. uh states exhibit 8-65 titled stipulation of fact is admitted by stipulation between the parties. Mr. Bledworth, >> your honor, states in an interesting posture. >> Do you need a moment on the record outside the presence of the jury? >> I think we do. >> Okay. Uh I think this would be an appropriate time to just set a schedule for the rest of the day. Uh, are we going to be able to It seems likely to me, you tell me, that we'll be taking a recess now, but not coming back for about 90 minutes. Does that sound about right? >> Your honor, that that's my my sense of it. I'm waiting on a defense decision. >> Okay. Well, in either way, I'll bet you steak dinner it's going to be about 90 minutes. But, uh, we're going to rise for the jury and I'll send out word through the bail. All right, the jury. It's a lot of stakes. >> We have lunch coming today, right? Okay. Very good. >> That's appreciate. >> Yeah. Have a seat, folks. Thank you. >> I knew you were on it. >> All right, Mr. Bledworth, we're on the record. The jury is not present. Tell me what's up. >> Your honor, the state's waiting on the defense's decision regarding the Norris matter because if they want to proceed in in one fashion, the state will call some additional witnesses in its case and chief. If they want to proceed in another fashion, then the state will rest. This is what I was trying to tease out and I apologize for not being more specific given that they did not open the door to this issue through any of the state's witnesses um in it the state's case of chief so far I understand the possible order of events from this point forward to be they'll make a decision about whether in the defense case to open the door to it if they do the state would be able to respond by among other things, uh, publishing evidence of Mr. Jeff's statements and, forgive me, the other gentleman, >> Bon Savage, >> Mr. Bonsavage's statements, uh, as part of the state's response to or rebuttal of the defense's theory of a failure or to investigate or incomplete investigation, but they haven't opened the door yet. So I don't think there's any need or ability uh for the state to get into it in its case and chief. >> Um okay your honor then the state rests. >> Okay. With the state having rested, Ms. Nester, uh does the defense have a motion? >> We do. Your honor, Mr. Ramos is going to take care of that. You're under uh your honor, under both rule 170 as well as 771713 discharge for insufficient evidence, the defense presents the following and moves for a directed verdict. At the conclusion, this is just for the record, judge, as your honor knows, at the conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution, which has just been done, uh, the court may issue an order dismissing any information or indictment or any account thereof upon the ground that the evidence is not legally sufficient to establish the offense or offenses charged therein or any lesser included offense. Judge, based on the evidence that has been presented over the past 10 days or so, including all inferences, of course, that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence, it is a position of the defense that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that some, however, not all of the elements of the crimes that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In terms of the sufficiency of the evidence, judge, I'll start backwards. uh starting with count five. With regards to the forgery, even looking at the all the inferences in favor of the state, we do not believe that the state has proven a specific intent to defraud as it relates to the forgery. Um there's no proof that the signature was done without Eric's authority. um and even assuming that the defendant, Miss Richens, signed on behalf uh of Eric um with or without permission. It does not that itself does not conclusively presume that because she signed the name of Eric that a forgery has occurred. The act, in other words, of signing another's name without permission doesn't constitute forgery. again, unless it was done with the intent to defraud, which we don't believe it has been met here. Terms of count four, and forgive me, judge, the way I am approaching this is based primarily on the information, the criminal information as the facts were laid out there. Um it was a bit difficult to follow through the testimony as to exactly what the state's position is. According to the criminal information, the basis for the true stage uh count for u insurance fraud is that Miss Richens or rather true stave true stage left the voicemail with Miss Richens requesting a copy of the prescription any prescription Mr. Richens had for fentanyl. Then later that same day, Miss Richens informed Truth Stage that fentanyl was not prescribed and that she had no idea how Eric obtained the fentanyl. >> I think it's that last clause of that sentence that the this is the state supremacia showing. Do you see it differently? And taking that um as their basis, what the evidence has shown thus far has been that Miss Richens sought and procured Oxy from Miss Lobber that while Miss Lober indicated that it was fentanyl, the her source, Mr. Croser, provided fentanyl, uh that she that Mr. Roser did not provide fentanyl rather he p he he provided prescription oxies from that moment from the supplier Mr. Croier to Miss Lobber. The evidence is that what was provided was oxy. >> May I ask you a direct question about that? >> Sure. >> Why couldn't a jury properly instructed on the law and consistent with the court's duty when considering a motion for directed verdict drawing all inferences in the state's favor? view the evidence as showing that Robert Closure Croer sold to Carmen Lobber 15 to 30 uh bluish pills marked M30. Carmen Lober provided him to Cory Richens and then based upon the testimony of Eric Haskell that during that time frame bluish pills marked M30 likely contained fentel. >> Two responses. One, the testimony from Mr. Croier as to the quantity and the amount per pill does not jive at all with the Haskell testimony as to how much was uh how much fentanyl grade or I guess street level nonprescription pills were going for. what was indicated in the evidence was the amount that was paid was consistent with prescription grade oxies. >> So that's how I would answer your honor's question. >> Okay. Um, count three, as I understand it, is that Miss Richens, again, according to the criminal information, had indicated a phone number with an incorrect digit, the signature on the application that purported to be Mr. Richens as a forgery. We've talked about count five and then in the context um and I think it was also the PO box. I imagine they were trying to establish that Mr. Richens didn't have access to that or something to that effect. Um I don't believe any evidence has been presented to that degree. Um or that >> the PO box circumstantial evidence that Eric didn't know about it. >> Not necessarily. If I view the inferences in the light most favorable to the state >> and even with that judge, I mean there was no evidence presented at all that uh from the postal service or anybody saying that Mr. had no idea that that PO box existed. There was a statement and a question made by I believe the state, but no no evidence was presented to show that that was actually the case. Um that's how I would answer your honor's question. Um, also an interesting point term life insurance at the moment that she allegedly signed on behalf of Eric and was submitted and was paid from her account. I am not certain that your honor could find that that term life insurance actually had value. What I mean by that is that there is case law of course in the civil process or context that in the context of term life insurance Utah courts have specifically address whether such policies have value as property and the court of appeals in Beckham v Beckham I didn't write down the citation I'll provide that your honor um held that term life insurance policies generally have no cash value and therefore no property value. This is of course in the context of marital assets. Um so I bring that up. I think that's an interesting point. Um obviously it was marked for 100,000 but the actual value of that I I don't know it raises an interesting issue. Doesn't the statute uh talking about the elements of that particular crime for account three talk about property money or things obtained or sought to be obtained? >> Correct. And that was going to be my last point is at that moment what the state needed to provide or prove um put forth evidence is that at the moment that Miss Richens allegedly signed on behalf of Mr. rich for $100,000 term life insurance that at that moment she knew that she was going to attempt to take her husband's life and I don't believe they've met that judge. That's how I would answer that. >> Okay. >> Um with regards to count two and one, most of these arguments overlap, but I will attempt to keep them separate. Judge, as I understand it, in order for them to have met the elements, in order for Miss Richens to be found guilty of an attempt, she must engage in conduct constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the offense. here information has been evidence has been presented that she did seek to obtain oxy. We've had that discussion. Obtaining that oxy, just obtaining the oxy itself is mere preparation. There is case law, as I'm sure your honor is aware, um, in state v. Johnson 821 P2D1 1150 that indicates that that is not enough coupled with the information that we just discussed as to whether it was oxy whether it was fentanyl I believe that's even Miss Richen's case currently is even in a better posture than Miss uh than Miss Johnson. So with that, if we look at it in the context of the Valentine's Day, there is no evidence at this point that what was obtained was fentanyl one. Even if it was uh oxy and she sought to obtain that, beyond that, there's nothing else, no other evidence that indicates that Miss Richens took those pills, the greenish blue ones. I think at that time 15 milligs is what Mr. Croier said and did anything else with it. I think the evidence as to Mr. Richens ingesting a sandwich is clear uh in terms of Miss Richens picking it up. Absolutely. That his reaction was a result of that and not anything else. I believe that the evidence is scant. Um, your honor has a question. >> No, I'm following. >> Um, I will say that even in missed, in the Johnson case, the evidence was clear that the defendant in that case had actually obtained a specific type of drug, methamphetamine. So even in that case, they knew exactly what was obtained. Here, it's unclear what was obtained. I will add this before I forget. It relates to all of this and your prior question. Um, in terms of the pills, Miss Lober testified the amount of pills that was significantly different from what Mr. Croier had indicated as well as the packaging. Um, I believe that's important in the court's consideration in terms of the what type of pills ultimately were given from Mr. Croier to Miss Slobber. This same argument uh not to rehash it applies to count one and it leaves us with the administering of the drug. Zero evidence has been presented besides that fentanyl was in his system in his gastric and it was possibly orally ingested. There has been no evidence in terms of the administering of whatever it was at all. Judge, for those reasons, the defense request that your honor exercise your duty under both the rule 17 as well as the code. Uh, and we move for directed verdict on those counts. Judge, for those reasons, unless your honor has any questions. >> I do not. You'll get the last word. >> Thank you. This Okay. Your honor, can I perhaps begin by asking the court if the court has any particular element that they they would like to the state to speak on? >> Oh, I understand the standard. I believe I understand the state's theory on each of the counts. Um, especially 1, two, three, and four. speak to account five if you want to. Specifically, Mr. Ramos' argument regarding lack of believable evidence regarding intented defraud. Your honor, it ties into count three, right? It's the same insurance. This is the $100,000 true stage policy. And the scheme charge, the scheme fraud in count three is that um Corey Richens at the the time she took out that $100,000. Well, this is interesting. The timing doesn't matter for count three, but the timing does matter for count four or sorry, count five. that at the as it relates to count five, at the time she forged Eric Richen's signature, she tended to she intended to um defraud. Um, I think the the evidence that supports her intent is the fact that nothing on the face of the application indicates that Eric would know know of this application. Right? The the mailing address, the email address, the phone number, everything, the payment, everything comes back to Corey Richens. and she signed this um I think it u it was late January um 2023 at a time when she had January 29, 2022, correct? >> I mean sorry 2022. It was the end of January 2022 at a time when she had already um begun asking um Hayden Jeff's Carmen Lobar for uh drugs of some sort. um at a time when she had already expressed her interest in starting a fresh life with Josh Grossman and at a time when um you know she had told uh Becky Lloyd that she would be better off if Eric was dead. um and at a time when she had told Josh Grossman if he would just go away. So um there is sufficient evidence in the utmost favorable to the state that a reasonable jury could find that on January the 29th when she forged Eric Richen's name she had intended the entire fraud scheme that's that's charged in count three. >> Understood. Anything further? >> No your honor. Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Ramos. Anything further, sir, >> just briefly, and this is of course Mr. Bloodworth wants to respond to this. I did neglect um in my argument initially as to count to the testimony regarding the I guess the joking nature conversation that Miss Stakings had that she testified to with both Miss Richens and Mr. Eric Richens. Um, of course your honor heard that, so I would just add that for the record. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Bworth. Anything further? >> No, your honor. >> All right, folks. Uh, I appreciate the argument. This is an important motion. Let me just take 5 minutes to collect my thoughts and I'll give you a ruling. We'll be in recess until 5 of noon. Thank you. >> All right. one through five in the operative information. It has long been established that the elements needed to make out a cause of action may be proven by direct and by circumstantial evidence. And if there is any evidence, however slight or circumstantial, which tends to show guilt of the crime charged or any of its degrees, it is the trial court's duty to submit the case to the jury. When evaluating a motion for directed verdict, the court is not free to weigh the evidence and thus invade the province of the jury whose prerogative it is to judge the facts. Rather, the court's role is to determine whether the state has produced believable evidence on each element of the crimes for which a jury acting reasonably could convict the defendant. Not will, not would, but could. Moreover, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state. Applying these legal principles as announced by the Utah Supreme Court and State versus Mononttoya 2004 UT5. The court finds that the state has established a primmaaccia case against defendant Cory Richens by producing believable evidence of each element of each crime charged in the operative information. Defendant's motion for directed verdict is respectfully denied. Ms. Nester, you asked for time to speak with your client to make some strategic decisions. Is between now and 1 p.m. sufficient time? >> Yes, your honor. >> Okay, Mr. Bledworth, anything further until before we recess until 1:00? >> Nothing further, your honor. >> Ms. Netor. >> No, sir. >> All right. will be in recess until 100 pm just confirming that to the extent uh the defendant will be putting on evidence and calling witnesses, you have a couple in the wings. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. 1 p.m. Thank you for your time. Courts in recess.