Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Officer Dennis Nelson, a police officer with the Orem City Police Department (OCPD), was terminated from his position for using excessive force during a booking at the Orem City Jail. The Orem City Employee Appeals Board (Board) upheld the termination. The court of appeals upheld the Board's decision, concluding (1) the OCPD's decision to terminate Nelson was not inconsistent with prior instances of discipline under OCPD's excessive force policy; (2) alternatively, the Board justified any disparate application of OCPD's policy; and (3) the Board did not violate Nelson's procedural due process rights at his hearing before the Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in applying an abuse of discretion standard of review; and (2) the court of appeals correctly found that any procedural due process violations at the hearing were harmless. View "Nelson v. City of Orem" on Justia Law

The City police department fired a police officer (Plaintiff) for reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol. The board of appeals and court of appeals affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol, in violation of the City's alcohol policy, as the portable breath test administered to Plaintiff accurately measured Plaintiff's breath alcohol and blood alcohol content; and (2) Utah Code 34-38-7 does not prohibit the City from deviating from its specified procedure of testing urine to establish blood alcohol content, as the statute does not apply to the City. View "Becker v. Sunset City" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of vaginal rape and forcible anal sodomy. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court's exclusion prior instances of sexual conduct between Defendant and the victim under Utah R. Evid. 412(b)(2)(A) was error. Specifically, Defendant unsuccessfully sought to offer evidence that he and the victim had previously engaged in consensual oral and anal sex through his own testimony and the testimony of witnesses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's exclusion of Defendant's proffered sexual history evidence under Rule 412(b)(2)(A) was error that undermined the jury's verdict. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Defendant, a New Mexico resident, was arrested in Utah and indicted on federal charges of coercion and enticement of a fifteen-year-old. Defendant was returned to New Mexico to await trial and remained there for more than two years, returning to Utah on a few occasions to attend proceedings in federal court. The federal charges were subsequently dismissed. Thereafter, the State of Utah charged Defendant with enticement of a minor. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. The district court denied Defendant's motion. At issue on appeal was the applicability of the criminal tolling statute, which tolls the limitations period while a defendant is out of the state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the criminal tolling statute applied to Defendant even though he was present in Utah during the course of the federal court proceedings, as (1) Defendant was only loosely subject to the authority of the State during the federal proceedings against him; and (2) applying the statute to Defendant did not violate the Uniform Operation of Laws provision of the Utah Constitution. View "State v. Canton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. Fourteen years later, Defendant filed a petition for a post-conviction determination of factual innocence pursuant to Utah's Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court vacated Defendant's murder conviction, determining (1) the PCRA allows a determination of factual innocence to be based on a combination of newly discovered evidence and previously available evidence; and (2) Defendant established her factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a post-conviction determination of factual innocence can be based on both newly discovered evidence and previously available evidence; and (2) the State did not properly challenge the post-conviction court's factual findings, and therefore, the post-conviction court's ultimate determination that Defendant was factually innocent was affirmed. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants were defrauded by an individual on parole from a Utah prison. Appellants filed a complaint alleging causes of action against the State for negligent supervision, gross negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation. Under the Governmental Immunity Act, the State is immune from a suit where the injury arises out of deceit. The district court dismissed the case based on the State's governmental immunity, finding that Appellants' injury was the result of a third-party's deceit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was immune under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act's deceit exception; and (2) the dismissal of Appellants' complaint on the basis of governmental immunity was timely. View "Van De Grift v. State" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were two agreements: a ground lease agreement between ASC Utah, Inc. (ASCU) and Wolf Mountain Resorts, and a specifically planned area (SPA) development agreement, which had thirty-six signatories, including ASCU, Wolf Mountain, the D.A. Osguthorpe Family Partnership (Osguthorpe). ASCU and Wolf Mountain began litigating claims involving both the ground lease and the SPA agreement. Shortly thereafter, Osguthorpe sued ASCU and Wolf Mountain, alleging that each party had breached a land-lease agreement distinct from the ground lease or the SPA agreement. The district court consolidated Osguthorpe's separate actions into ASCU's litigation. Osguthorpe later moved to compel arbitration on all the claims related to the SPA agreement, including the claims between ASCU and Wolf Mountain, to which Osguthrope was not a party. The district court denied Osguthrope's motion. Osguthrope withdrew its SPA claims from the case, leaving for appeal only Osguthrope's motion to compel arbitration of the SPA claims between ASCU and Wolf Mountain. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the disputes for which Osguthrope sought to compel arbitration were not subject to the SPA agreement's arbitration provision; and (2) furthermore, as a non-party to the disputes, Osguthrope had no contractual right to compel their arbitration. View "Osguthorpe v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to disorderly conduct in the justice county and was sentenced to ninety days in jail and ordered to pay a fine. After conducting a trial de novo, the district court convicted Defendant of the original charge, sentenced him to 180 days in jail, and imposed a higher fine. Defendant petitioned the court of appeals for extraordinary relief, arguing that the district court violated Utah Code 76-3-405 when it imposed a more severe punishment than the one originally imposed by the justice court. The court of appeals denied the requested relief, reasoning that although the statute generally prohibits the imposition of a greater sentence after a defendant appeals, Defendant's case fell outside of the general rule because his original conviction and sentence resulted from a plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the section 76-3-405(2)(b) exception against imposing a harsher sentence on appeal when a defendant has entered into a plea agreement applies to justice court proceedings. View "Vorher v. Court of Appeals" on Justia Law

The Utah Highway Patrol performed a drug interdiction exercise on a rural stretch of the interstate. UHP chose to focus the bulk of its enforcement efforts on cars bearing out-of-state license plates. Defendant's California-plated vehicle was stopped during the exercise, and the traffic stop yielded evidence of illegal drugs. Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute. Defendant filed two suppression motions - one based on the Equal Protection Clause and right to travel and the other rooted in the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied both motions, and Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the traffic stop did not restrict Defendant's movement in a manner implicating his fundamental right to travel; (2) because there was a rational basis for UHP's selective enforcement of traffic laws - by choosing to stop vehicles licensed outside of Utah - Defendant's equal protection claim was meritless; and (3) to the extent the district court erred in failing to consider any evidence of relevance to the Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, it was harmless error. View "State v. Chettero" on Justia Law

Defendant, a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction, was arrested for possession of methamphetamine after being questioned and searched by a deputy sheriff. Defendant moved to suppress the fruits of the search. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the deputy improperly extended the length of the detention without reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the deputy's questioning of Defendant, during which Defendant admitted to possession of illegal drugs, was proper based on the deputy's reasonable suspicion brought about by the driver's likely impairment and the presence of used drug paraphernalia in plain sight; and (2) the deputy did not improperly extend the duration of Defendant's detention because the deputy's single question to Defendant resulted in only a de minimis extension of the otherwise lawful detention. View "State v. Simons" on Justia Law