State v. Peterson

2019 UT App 193
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee,
v.
S ETH GORDON PETERSON ,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20180369-CA
Filed November 29, 2019
Seventh District Court, Price Department
The Honorable George M. Harmond
No. 161700479
Robert A. Oliver, Attorney for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes and Lindsey L. Wheeler, Attorneys
for Appellee
JUDGE K ATE A PPLEBY authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN F ORSTER and JILL M. POHLMAN
concurred.
APPLEBY, Judge:
¶1 	Seth Gordon Peterson killed his mother (Mother) and
brother (Brother) and appeals his conviction for the aggravated
murder of Brother. Peterson presented a voluntary intoxication
defense at trial claiming he did not intentionally kill Mother or
Brother 	because 	he 	had 	experienced 	psychosis 	from
methamphetamine use and therefore could be convicted only of
manslaughter for each killing. He contends the jury accepted this
defense as to Mother but not Brother and therefore reached an
inconsistent verdict. We affirm.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	2 	2019 UT App 193
BACKGROUND
¶2 	Peterson lived on a farm in central Utah with his two
uncles. They used methamphetamine together “religiously every
day.” Peterson denied using methamphetamine the day of the
killings, 	but 	later 	claimed 	he 	did 	and 	suffered 	from
methamphetamine psychosis.
¶3 	The day before the homicides, Peterson and one of his
uncles (Uncle C) drove to Salt Lake City, Utah to purchase
drugs. During the drive Uncle C said Peterson told him “an
entity . . . offered [Peterson] mortality on this earth if [he] were to
offer up one of [his] brothers’ limbs or lives” and that Brother
was “a leader of all demons.” Uncle C asked Peterson if he told
the entity “no,” but Peterson did not respond. The next morning
on their way home, Peterson told Uncle C he did not want to use
drugs anymore and asked for help.
¶4 	Once 	they 	arrived 	home, 	Peterson 	was 	“clearly
disturbed” and “very upset.” He told his other uncle (Uncle J)
that he would kill Brother that day. Peterson then told Uncle J
about the “entity” who told him “he would receive the ultimate
power” if he killed Brother.
¶5 	Later that day, Peterson called 911. He told the dispatcher
that he felt like his “life [was] in danger” and that he needed
help immediately. The dispatcher asked if anyone had a weapon
or had taken any drugs, and Peterson told her there were
weapons. When asked whether the weapon was a gun, Peterson
refused to answer any additional questions. The dispatcher told
Peterson she needed to make sure the responding officers were
safe, and he told her that “they may not be.” He insisted he
needed 	assistance 	but 	never 	told 	the 	dispatcher 	what 	was
wrong. In the background of the call, Peterson can be heard
telling Uncle J he called the police because he did not feel safe
and he was scared for his life. Uncle J told Peterson he was

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	3 	2019 UT App 193
acting “insane,” and in response, Peterson attempted to “cancel”
the 911 call because everything was “alright.” The dispatcher
told Peterson she could not cancel the call. Peterson hung up on
her.
¶6 	Police officers responded to the residence and Uncle J
informed them that Peterson intended to “kill [Brother] that
day.” An officer spoke with Peterson, who was showing signs
of “obvious paranoia” but not intoxication. The officer reported
that Peterson came “back to reality quite a few times and he
was calm” and overall was “very nice” and “cordial.” The
officer 	repeatedly 	asked 	Peterson 	if 	he 	had 	been 	using
methamphetamine, 	and 	Peterson 	denied 	doing 	so. 	The
officers 	unloaded 	all 	the 	guns 	on 	the 	property, 	including
Peterson’s and Uncle C’s rifles. They contacted Mother, and
she agreed to come over to look after Peterson. The officers left
the house and Mother and Brother arrived about forty minutes
later.
¶7 	When Mother and Brother arrived, Peterson greeted them
as if “everything was normal.” Soon after they arrived, Uncle C
decided to go look for a wounded deer he saw on the farm.
Mother and Peterson went with him, while Brother and Uncle J
remained at the house. Peterson watched Uncle C load his rifle
and then got his own rifle.
¶8 	Uncle 	C, 	Mother, 	and 	Peterson 	left 	on 	an 	all-terrain
vehicle to go look for the deer. They drove to a field and
separated to look for it. Uncle C went one way while Mother
and 	Peterson 	went 	another. 	Uncle 	C 	overheard 	the 	other
two briefly argue. Mother tried to take Peterson’s rifle, but he
pushed her away. Next, Uncle C heard Peterson yell, “[N]o
you’re 	not” 	followed 	by 	the 	sound 	of 	a 	gunshot 	and 	a
“horrifying scream.” Uncle C saw Mother running down the hill
with her face “all red.” He heard Mother “making a noise . . . like
her larynx had gotten blown out.” She “squeal[ed] . . . like a pig”

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	4 	2019 UT App 193
and 	Peterson 	made 	a 	similar 	noise 	while 	“laughing” 	and
“mocking” her.
¶9 	Uncle C approached Mother and noticed her “face was . . .
gone.” He yelled to Peterson, “[W]hat did you do to your
mom?” to which Peterson responded, “I shot her in the fucking
face.” Next, Uncle C saw Brother driving toward them, but his
truck got stuck in a ditch near Mother. Peterson reloaded his rifle
and shot Mother in the back. Peterson then approached Brother,
who was sitting in the truck, and shot him in the face. Peterson
pulled Brother’s body from the truck and drove the truck out of
the ditch. He returned to Brother’s body, rifled through Brother’s
pockets, took twenty dollars, and left the body in the ditch.
Peterson then fled in the truck.
¶10 	Peterson 	returned 	to 	the 	house 	and 	encountered 	the
owner (Owner) of the farm. Peterson calmly explained that he
needed help burying “two bodies” and that he “just killed two
demons.” Owner told Peterson he would help if Peterson gave
him his gun. Owner’s cellphone rang, startling Peterson, who
pointed his rifle at Owner’s chest and “motion[ed] towards the
trigger.” Owner grabbed the rifle and hit Peterson with it.
Peterson ran to Owner’s truck and retrieved a crowbar. Owner
called 911 and put the phone in his pocket as Peterson lunged at
him with the crowbar. Peterson struck Owner with the crowbar
“eight 	to 	fifteen 	times,” 	and 	Owner 	thought 	Peterson 	was
“trying to kill” him. Peterson eventually “got tired” and drove
off.
¶11 	The first officers to arrive at the scene saw Peterson
driving erratically down the street. The officers tried to pull
Peterson over, but he kept driving, which triggered a high-speed
chase. Peterson was driving “very fast,” weaving in and out of
lanes. He threw glassware, a backpack, and a duffel bag out the
truck window. Eventually he veered off the road and crashed.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	5 	2019 UT App 193
He ran up a hill, but was pursued by officers who caught and
arrested him.
¶12 	Shortly after his arrest, Peterson admitted he “killed [his]
family.” He was transported to a hospital where he claimed he
used methamphetamine that day.1 He was later released from
the hospital and booked into jail.
¶13 	Peterson spoke to several family members the next day.
They believed Peterson’s drug use caused him to kill Mother and
Brother. One of his brothers told him “[R]emember in your legal
defense, that, you know, you had no clue, like you honestly
thought [Mother and Brother] were the devil . . . because you can
claim insanity, not that you are insane right now, but when you
were on drugs . . . it does that to you sometimes.”
¶14 	The 	next 	day, 	a 	detective 	(Detective) 	interviewed
Peterson. 	Peterson 	told 	Detective 	he 	had 	been 	using
methamphetamine prior to and on the day of the homicides. He
said 	he 	had 	not 	slept 	for 	four 	days before 	the 	homicides.
Peterson explained that while he was buying drugs in Salt Lake
City he began experiencing hallucinations and felt he was being
followed. He said it may have just been “paranoia from using
the drug” or it “may have been something else.” Peterson told
Detective that on the return drive from Salt Lake City he felt
“paranoid” about police “and other people” following them and
felt his life was in danger before they reached home. Once back
at the house, he called the police because he still felt “unsafe.”
¶15 	Peterson explained that once Mother and Brother arrived,
they “didn’t seem like they were themselves,” as if they were
“artificial bodies with artificial minds.” He explained Mother
tried to help him calm down but he saw her “face deform”; at
1. Peterson’s blood tested positive for amphetamines.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	6 	2019 UT App 193
that point he knew she was “an artificial intelligence” and he
“had to destroy her” and Brother “because they were both
[S]atan.” Peterson explained, “And so I shot her.” He said she
screamed “and it sounded like a demon,” which confirmed he
had done the right thing.
¶16 	Next, Peterson explained that Brother appeared a short
time later but did not seem like himself so he shot Brother too.
He told Detective that he “didn’t feel like he gave [Brother]
much of a chance.” He stated that he had a brief exchange of
words 	with 	Brother 	and 	asked 	him 	who 	he 	was. 	Brother
responded, “Well, I’m your brother who you grew up with,” and
then Peterson shot him. Peterson explained he stole the twenty
dollars from Brother because he knew Brother “wouldn’t need it
[since] he was dead.”
¶17 	Peterson 	was 	charged 	with 	attempted 	aggravated
murder, aggravated robbery, failure to respond to an officer’s
signal, and two counts of aggravated murder. At the close of the
State’s evidence at trial, Peterson moved for a directed verdict,
arguing insufficient evidence supported finding that he acted
intentionally and knowingly when he killed Mother and Brother.
The court denied the motion.
¶18 	Peterson’s theory at trial was that he committed the
murders while experiencing methamphetamine psychosis and
therefore 	could 	be 	convicted 	only 	of 	manslaughter—not
aggravated murder. He called a mental health counselor as an
expert witness who described the possible side-effects of using
methamphetamine, including methamphetamine psychosis. The
counselor testified that visual hallucinations are rare when one is
under the influence of methamphetamine, but if they occur, they
are 	usually 	“very 	fleeting” 	and 	unclear. 	For 	example, 	an
individual might see a human’s face distort into a dog’s face and
then back to a human’s within a short time. The counselor

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	7 	2019 UT App 193
concluded methamphetamine psychosis is rare but could affect a
person’s ability to form mens rea.2
¶19 	Uncle J testified that Peterson was not himself on the day
of the killings. He explained that Peterson had “a feeling of
wanting to kill [Brother] in the past” and had been fighting that
feeling. Uncle C testified he believed Peterson was “possessed”
on the day in question, but also that Peterson “knew what he
was doing.”
¶20 	The jury found Peterson guilty of aggravated murder for
killing Brother and manslaughter for killing Mother.3 After trial,
Peterson moved to arrest judgment on the aggravated murder
conviction. He argued that the aggravated murder conviction
was 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	manslaughter 	conviction. 	He
contended 	the 	jury 	“was 	convinced 	that 	[Peterson] 	was
voluntarily 	intoxicated 	when 	he 	killed 	[Mother], 	but 	not
convinced that [Peterson] was voluntarily intoxicated when he
killed [Brother].” And because the killings happened so close in
time, the verdict did not make sense and should be set aside. The
district court denied the motion, explaining that a claim of
inconsistency alone is insufficient to overturn a verdict and that
Peterson did not make a showing of an additional error to
overturn it. The court concluded there was no evidence to show
the jury committed an error and sufficient evidence supported
the convictions.
2. Mens rea is “[t]he state of mind that the prosecution, to secure
a conviction, must prove that a defendant had when committing
a crime.” Mens rea, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2010).
3. The jury also found him guilty of attempted aggravated
murder, 	aggravated 	robbery, 	and 	failure 	to 	respond 	to 	an
officer’s 	command, 	but 	Peterson 	does 	not 	appeal 	these
convictions.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	8 	2019 UT App 193
¶21 	The district court sentenced Peterson to one to fifteen
years in prison for the manslaughter conviction and twenty-five
years to life for the aggravated murder conviction, ordering each
sentence to run concurrently.4 Peterson appeals.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶22 	Peterson argues the district court erred in denying his
motion to arrest judgment after the jury reached an allegedly
inconsistent verdict. We review inconsistency challenges to jury
verdicts “in the light most favorable to the verdict and will not
overturn a jury’s verdict of criminal conviction unless reasonable
minds could not rationally have arrived at a verdict of guilty
beyond 	a 	reasonable 	doubt 	based 	on 	the 	law 	and 	on 	the
evidence presented.” State v. LoPrinzi, 2014 UT App 256, ¶ 11,
338 P.3d 253 (quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
¶23 	Peterson argues the district court erred in denying his
motion to arrest judgment after the jury reached an allegedly
inconsistent verdict. He contends the jury could not reasonably
convict him of aggravated murder for killing Brother when it
presumably believed his voluntary intoxication defense and
convicted him of manslaughter for killing Mother. He argues the
verdict was unreasonable because of the short time interval
between the killings.
4. He was also sentenced to six years to life on the attempted
aggravated 	murder 	conviction, 	five 	years 	to 	life 	for 	the
aggravated robbery conviction, and zero to five years for his
failure to respond to an officer’s command conviction.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	9 	2019 UT App 193
¶24 	This court will not reverse a conviction on an inconsistent
verdict challenge unless “reasonable minds could not rationally
have arrived at the verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
based on the law and on the evidence presented.” State v.
LoPrinzi, 	2014 	UT 	App 	256, 	¶ 	30, 	338 	P.3d 	253 	(quotation
simplified). In other words, “so long as sufficient evidence
supports each of the guilty verdicts, state courts generally have
upheld the convictions.” State v. Cady, 2018 UT App 8, ¶ 32, 414
P.3d 974 (quotation simplified). This is “because appellate courts
have always resisted inquiring into the jury’s thought processes
and 	deliberations,” 	id. 	(quotation 	simplified), 	and 	have
recognized that a jury may have arrived at an inconsistent
verdict “through mistake, compromise, or lenity,” LoPrinzi, 2014
UT App 256, ¶ 30 (quotation simplified).
¶25 	Although we can conceive of several scenarios under
which the verdicts were not inconsistent, we assume without
deciding 	that 	the 	aggravated 	murder 	conviction 	for 	killing
Brother and the manslaughter conviction for killing Mother are
inconsistent. But we conclude sufficient evidence supports the
aggravated murder conviction.5
¶26 	Peterson claims insufficient evidence supports the jury’s
verdict finding that he “intentionally or knowingly” caused
Brother’s death. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202(1) (LexisNexis Supp.
2019). Peterson also advanced a voluntary intoxication defense,
which 	required 	the 	jury 	to 	decide 	whether 	his
methamphetamine use created reasonable doubt as to whether
he intentionally or knowingly killed Mother and Brother. Utah
Code Ann. § 76-2-306 (2017). Ample evidence supports the
theory that Peterson acted intentionally and knowingly when he
killed Brother and that he was not “so intoxicated that he was
5. Peterson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for
his manslaughter conviction.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	10 	2019 UT App 193
incapable of forming the requisite mental state for [aggravated
murder].” Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 50, 342 P.3d 182.
¶27 	For example, Peterson disclosed to several people before
the killings that he wanted to kill Brother. Specifically, he told
his uncles that “entities” offered him “ultimate power” if he
killed Brother. This evidence demonstrates that Peterson formed
the intent to kill Brother prior to the killings.
¶28 	Also, the rifle Peterson used required him to “lift the bolt,
pull it back, push it forward, and then lower the bolt” each time
he fired. Peterson shot Mother twice, once in the face and once in
the back to “end her suffering,” and he said he knew he was
killing a human when he shot Mother the second time. Peterson
then reloaded his rifle and shot Brother in the face at point-blank
range. After shooting Brother, Peterson dumped the body out of
the truck and tried to drive away, returning to the body to take
money from Brother’s wallet because, according to him, Brother
“wouldn’t need it [since] he was dead.” This evidence shows not
only did enough time elapse between the killings for him to form
the requisite intent to kill Brother, but also that he recognized he
was killing human beings.
¶29 	Finally, Peterson drove away in the truck and fled from
the police. When he was arrested, one of the first statements he
made was “I killed my family.” Regardless of the weight the jury
may have given his voluntary intoxication defense, we conclude
“some evidence exists” from which the jury could determine
Peterson 	intentionally 	or 	knowingly 	killed 	Brother. 	State 	v.
Montoya, 2004 UT 5, ¶ 29, 84 P.3d 1183 (quotation simplified). As
Peterson’s 	own 	expert 	testified, 	hallucinating 	from
methamphetamine 	is 	“rare” 	and 	when 	it 	does 	occur, 	it 	is
typically short-lived and the hallucinations are not vivid or clear.
¶30 	We 	conclude 	the 	above, 	taken 	together, 	is 	sufficient
evidence to support Peterson’s aggravated murder conviction.

State v. Peterson
20180369-CA 	11 	2019 UT App 193
See Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6, ¶ 49, 247 P.3d 380 (“[W]ith regard to a
claim that a jury verdict is internally inconsistent, we resolve any
inconsistency in favor of giving effect to a jury verdict.”).
CONCLUSION
¶31 	The 	district 	court 	did 	not 	err 	in 	denying 	Peterson’s
motion to arrest judgment because sufficient evidence supports
his 	aggravated 	murder 	conviction 	for 	killing 	Brother.
Accordingly, we affirm.