District Court, West Jordan Department The Honorable William
K. Kendall No. 141400680
Nathalie S. Skibine and Heather J. Chesnut, Attorneys for
Simarjit S. Gill and Colleen K. Magee, Attorneys for
Michele M. Christiansen authored this Memorandum Decision, in
which Judge Gregory K. Orme concurred. Judge J. Frederic
Voros Jr. concurred in the result, with opinion.
Douglas Ewald Isaacson (Defendant) appeals his conviction for
one count of carrying a loaded and concealed dangerous
weapon, a class A misdemeanor. See Utah Code Ann. §
76-10-504(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2013). We affirm.
In October 2013, the Draper City police received a tip from a
local library that Defendant was carrying a concealed weapon
and that the library staff knew he did not have a
concealed-carry permit. While en route to the library, the
responding officers learned that Defendant had left the
library and was likely headed to a nearby senior center. The
officers found Defendant in the senior center's
cafeteria. Defendant admitted to the officers that he had a
gun concealed inside his jacket, and he allowed one of the
officers to remove the gun from his jacket. The gun was fully
At a bench trial, Defendant stipulated that he did not have a
concealed-carry permit. According to Defendant, he believed
he did not need a concealed-carry permit because he had
"a Second Amendment right to bear arms."
Before the first witness was called to testify, Defendant
indicated that he planned to call two "reputation or . .
. character witnesses." The State objected, observing
that the witnesses were not present at the time the offense
occurred and that their testimony "would not be relevant
to proving the case as far as any of the elements that the
State need[ed] to prove since they were not present."
Defendant indicated that the witnesses would be testifying as
to his reputation for truthfulness and his
"comprehension abilities and propensities related to the
concealed carry permit law and also relating to carrying a
weapon." The trial court reserved ruling on the issue.
One of the responding police officers testified for the
State, and a body-camera video was introduced and admitted
into evidence. The video showed that Defendant was carrying a
concealed gun inside his jacket. Based on this evidence and
the testimony presented at trial, the court found that the
gun was fully loaded and could be fired "simply by
pulling the trigger one time."
Defendant testified that he had taken the concealed-carry
class twice but that he had never obtained a concealed-carry
permit. He also testified that he did not have a holster to
carry his gun. Defendant further testified regarding his
limited finances, explaining that he had
"economized" to purchase his gun and to pay for the
After Defendant testified, he again asked to call the two
witnesses to testify regarding his reputation for
truthfulness. The trial court ruled that the witnesses could
not testify because "there ha[d] been no attack on
[Defendant's] reputation for truthfulness and so pursuant
to the rule it would be hearsay to have any witness come in
and testify further about [Defendant's] reputation for
truthfulness." The court also ruled that further
testimony concerning Defendant's "knowledge of
needing a concealed weapons permit and his feeling on the
law" was neither relevant nor admissible.
Ultimately, the trial court found Defendant guilty of
carrying a loaded and concealed dangerous weapon,
see Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-504(2) (LexisNexis
Supp. 2013), and sentenced him to one year in jail. The court
suspended Defendant's sentence, placed him on probation,
ordered him to complete twenty-four hours of community
service, and ordered him to pay a $100 recoupment fee.
On appeal, Defendant contends that "the court erred when
it did not allow [him] to call two witnesses who would have
testified about [his] character for truthfulness." We
review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse
of discretion and its interpretation of evidentiary rules ...