Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld a 2019 guilty verdict in a murder case against Karrar Thaer Suhail, saying the circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime is strong.
Suhail, 31, was found guilty of murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and obstruction of justice on Nov. 22, 2019, after a five-day jury trial, then later appealed the conviction.
The Utah Court of Appeals published an opinion last week affirming Suhail's guilty verdict for murder, aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, first-degree felonies, along with obstructing justice, a second-degree felony.
The opinion said Suhail was addicted to oxycodone and often bought prescription drugs from Alaa "Ali" Alkhatawi, 46, who was found dead in his home on Dec. 9, 2016. His friends said he was a refugee who fled Iraq in 1991 during Desert Storm and was resettled in the United States.
According to testimony in court from Suhail's ex-girlfriend, they drove past the victim's apartment the day the body was found and Suhail asked her if she "would keep in contact with him if he were to get locked up for 25 years," and asked something like, "Do you think I would do that?"
An autopsy showed that Alkhatawi was stabbed 39 times, but the murder weapon was not in his apartment. Police also did not find any pills, money or the victim's wallet or phone.
Police arrested Suhail on unrelated charges within a week of the killing, and found him with multiple cash receipts from that week and pills.
A forensic scientist found a shoe print at the scene was from a specific Asics shoe, but Suhail's attorney argued that Suhail's shoe size was smaller than the size of the shoe estimated by the investigator. At trial, however, the attorney learned one of the shoes used to test the shoe print was in a women's size, which meant the print was close to Suhail's size.
Suhail's attorney, Rudy Bautista, called this information "an ambush" and "a due process violation" and later asked for a mistrial, which was denied.
The attorney also sought a mistrial after the prosecutor pointed to Suhail's question to his girlfriend about whether she would keep in contact with him if he were locked up for 25 years, and the prosecutor described 25 years as "murder time." That request for a mistrial was denied, but the judge told the jury a sentence for murder is not 25 years.
Bautista presented evidence at trial about erratic actions from the victim's neighbor and argued the neighbor could have been responsible.
A bottle of pigeon food spilled on the ground at the scene which was described as a red goo. Bautista argued the shoe print could have been made in the spilled pigeon food rather than in blood. He said that meant the shoe prints could have been left before the murder.
In the appeal, Suhail argued Bautista should have presented the neighbor's shoe size and did not. Bautista said in an affidavit he "got distracted during trial" and failed to present that evidence.
Suhail asked for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct due to the prosecutor's comment about 25 years in prison being "murder time" and a response to his attorney's argument about pigeon food, and ineffective counsel because Bautista did not know the shoe the investigator used was a woman's size.
His request for a new trial was denied by 3rd District Judge Todd Shaughnessy on March 27, 2020, and now the appellate court, which determined testimony about the shoe size was weak and did not cause material harm to Suhail.
"There's reason to think that in the actual trial, (the forensic scientist's) size testimony didn't matter much," the court of appeals determined, noting that the technician said she was not confident about the size and gave a weak testimony.
The opinion listed multiple reasons that the state's case was "quite strong," although it was circumstantial.
- Another person who bought drugs from the victim saw Suhail walking out of the victim's apartment shortly after midnight on Dec. 9, 2016, the day he was found dead.
- That person reported text messages from someone claiming to be the victim that seemed suspicious.
- Suhail's phone was near the victim's apartment that night, although he denied being there.
- Cellphone data shows Suhail took the victim's phone, because both phones were near Suhail's mother's apartment that night.
- Suhail had no money prior to Alkhatawi's death, and had borrowed money to purchase a pill from him, but after the death he made several cash purchases and gave money to his ex-girlfriend and gifts to their child.
- Suhail texted another drug dealer on the day the victim's body was found seeking to sell large quantities of pills, and he was arrested with 40 Xanax pills.
- No cash or pills were found in Alkhatawi's apartment, and evidence shows whoever murdered him stole those and his phone.
- The girlfriend noticed a bruise on his neck that morning, suggesting he had been in a fight.
- A photo on Suhail's phone taken before the murder showed him wearing Asics shoes that would match the shoe print, although those shoes were not found.
"The most reasonable inferences to be drawn from these collected details are quite clear — namely, Suhail killed (Alkhatawi) and was bruised during the confrontation, stole (his) money and drugs, tampered with (his) phone in an attempt to show that (Alkhatawi) was still alive after he had left, and was then caught with (Alkhatawi's) money and drugs soon after," the opinion said.
The Utah Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor saying 25 years was "murder time" was improper, but contended Suhail did not show that the district court's ruling to instruct the jury about it was an abuse of discretion.
"The cumulative effect of the alleged errors does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of Suhail's trial," the opinion said.
Suhail is serving a sentence of between 15 years and life in prison for murder, concurrently with sentences of between five years to life for aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, and between one and 15 years for obstructing justice.
