Third District, Salt Lake Department,

The Honorable Judith S. Atherton

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Scott Tyler Stapley, Defendant and Appellant.

Filed February 25, 2011

Scott Tyler Stapley is appealing his conviction for attempted murder with Cody

Augustine. He is alleging that the trial court’s presentation of the photographs depicted as

gruesome knife wounds inflicted by Augustine was not relevant. Stapley is also claiming that the

State violated a court order that prohibits it from using duplicate photographs of J.E.'s injuries.

On July 29​th​, 2008, Stapley and Augustine attacked 17 year old J.E. outside of his home after

drinking alcohol. They accused J.E of contracting an STD to Augustine’s girlfriend. After posing

as the girlfriend via text, Augustine and Stapley attacked J.E. Augustine attempted to attack J.E

with a knife and then Stapley attacked J.E. with a battle-ax. J.E. was struck with the knife and

battle-ax a total of twelve times and underwent two surgeries in order to repair the wounds. After

Stapley was arrested he stated that he was surprised that J.E. was still alive.

Stapley is stating that the photographs are irrelevant as the information about the wounds

would have been stated through testimonies rather than pictures. The court limited the display of

the photographs and concluded that they were not gruesome. Stapley is stating that he did not

have the intent to kill J.E. and made the decision of “backing up” Augustine. He’s claiming that

he did not hear Augustine use the word “kill” and they were only planning to assault J.E, he is
also stating that he felt remorse. Stapley stated that the first time he struck J.E. was out of

“reflex” and that J.E. was “coming at him” and the second time was accidental. The State sought

to convict Stapley for aggravated assault as there was no serious bodily injury. The wounds upon

cross examination did not cause any damage to J.E’s organs and the ax injuries did not affect the

vital organs. In conclusion even though Stapley contended that the display of the photographs

was “gruesome” it was not an abuse of discretion and did not hold any unfair prejudice.