Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, and unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Y-STR DNA evidence linking Defendant to the murder weapon; (2) the trial court did not err when it refused to admit the entire transcript or video of Defendant’s second police interview after a State witness testified to portions of the interview at trial; (3) defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance in his cross-examination of one of the detectives who conducted the second interview; (4) the trial court did not err when it admitted an officer’s testimony about the frequency of drug-related crimes; (5) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (6) the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for murder and aggravated robbery; and (7) Defendant failed to demonstrate cumulative error that undermined confidence in the verdict. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder with an enhancement for criminal street gang activity, obstruction of justice, and possession or use of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly denied Defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the murder and obstruction-of-justice charges; (2) did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to present gang-related evidence during the guilt phase of the trial; and (3) did not abuse its discretion by dismissing as untimely Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the gang-enhancement statute. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the applicability of the “attenuation” exception to the exclusionary rule to a fact pattern involving an unlawful detention leading to the discovery of an arrest warrant followed by a search incident to arrest. Defendant in this case entered a conditional plea to drug-related charges, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress and reconsider. The court of appeals affirmed under the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule. After noting that the lower courts are in “disarray” in their application of the attenuation doctrine to the outstanding warrant scenario and the lack of direction from the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter, the Supreme Court concluded (1) the attenuation exception is limited to cases involving intervening acts of a defendant’s free will, as in a confession or consent to search; and (2) because this case involved no independent act of a defendant’s free will, the attenuation doctrine was not implicated, and Defendant was entitled to suppression of the evidence secured in the search incident to his arrest. View "State v. Strieff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. Upon sentencing Defendant, the trial court failed to comply with Utah R. Crim. P. 22(c)(1) by not informing Defendant of his right to appeal and of the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Over two years later, Defendant filed a motion seeking reinstatement of his right to appeal. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because neither the trial court nor defense counsel informed Defendant of the thirty-day deadline, Defendant had a valid claim for reinstatement of the right to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that claims for reinstatement of the right to appeal are subject to harmless error review, and the court of appeals in this case erred by declining to apply harmless error analysis. Remanded. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2014, the City of Draper passed and adopted a Resolution that levied a tax on property located within the Traverse Ridge Special Service District. Petitioners, five residents, collected certified voter signatures and asked the City to refer the Resolution to voters of the District. The City rejected the referendum petition, asserting that the tax levy was a nonreferable administrative action. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court granted the relief sought, holding (1) the Resolution was properly referable to the voters because it was legislative in nature; and (2) the City’s constitutional challenge to the subjurisdictional referendum statute failed. View "Mawhinney v. Draper City" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Utah legislature passed S.B. 165, which altered the requirements for placing an initiative on the ballot. Appellants in this case were sponsors of a local initiative petition. After attempting, unsuccessfully, to place the initiative on the ballot, Appellants filed suit against the Lieutenant Governor and Salt Lake County Clerk (collectively, the State), seeking a declaration that two of the amended provisions of S.B. 165 violated the right to initiative and uniform operation of laws provisions of the Utah Constitution and the Free Speech Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court denied Appellants’ claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the challenged amendments do not violate the Utah Constitution’s guarantees of the right of the people to initiate legislation or the uniform operation of the law, and further, do not violate the federal First Amendment. View "Cook v. Bell" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the district court’s approval of the Utah Department of Financial Institutions’ (UDFI) seizure of America West Bank Members, L.C. (Bank) and the appointment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the Bank. The Bank filed a complaint against the State, UDFI, and the director of UDFI (collectively, the State), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, constitutional takings, and due process violations. The district court dismissed the Bank’s claims for lack of sufficient factual allegations under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it dismissed the Bank’s claims; and (2) the district court did not hold the Bank to a heightened pleading standard. View "America West Bank Members, L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of domestic violence in the presence of a minor arising out of his attack on his wife in the presence of the parties’ four-year-old daughter. During voir dire, defense counsel used all five of his peremptory challenges on female members of the venire. The prosecution objected, and because Defendant failed to give nondiscriminatory explanations for two of the strikes, the trial court reinstated those two jurors. The court, however, did not restore the two peremptory challenges Defendant used to strike the jurors. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendant had not shown he was actually prejudiced by his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance or by the trial court’s alleged errors. the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show that any prejudice arose from any arguable deficiency in his counsel’s performance or that there was a basis for a presumption of prejudice; and (2) Defendant failed to establish the elements of plain error in regard to the trial court’s decision to reinstate the two jurors and its failure to sua sponte restore the peremptory challenges used to strike them. View "State v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Nearly twenty years ago Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. After Appellant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, Appellant unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Appellant’s post-conviction petition and allowed him to amend his petition. Ultimately, Appellant filed a fifth amended petition for relief under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), which the post-conviction court (PCC) denied. Appellant appealed the denial of his fifth amended petition, raising numerous claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the PCRA failed because he did not establish he had a constitutional right to funded post-conviction counsel, and the PCC did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant further PCRA funding; (2) the PCC did not err in rejecting several of Appellant’s post-conviction motions; and (3) Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt-phase, penalty-phase, or appellate proceedings. View "Menzies v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant, a Mexican native and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to felony theft. Eight years later, deportation proceedings were initiated against Appellant, in part due to Appellant’s 2002 felony theft conviction. Appellant filed a petition asking the district court to vacate his 2002 plea under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) or, alternatively, through a writ of coram nobis. In his petition, Appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective during the plea process by failing to disclose the possible immigration consequences related to his plea. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition and writ of coram nobis, concluding (1) Appellant’s petition was time barred by the PCRA, and (2) Appellant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, as Appellant knew or should have known that there were potential immigration consequences related to his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to preserve his argument that his attorney affirmatively misrepresented the immigration consequences of his plea; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s petition for a writ of coram nobis, as Appellant had a remedy available to him through the PCRA. View "Oseguera v. State" on Justia Law