Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Here, the Supreme Court clarified the standard the Crime Victims Restitution Act (CVRA) requires the district court to employ to determine whether a defendant caused the loss for which a victim seeks restitution.Defendant in this case sexually abused Victim several times and pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Victim intervened in Defendant’s restitution hearing to seek restitution for the anticipated cost of mental health treatment for the remainder of her life. The district court entered orders for complete and court-ordered restitution. On appeal, Defendant argued that Victim’s damages were caused, in part, by her subsequent sexual abuse by another person and that the court based its complete restitution award upon speculation about expenses Victim would incur in the future. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that the CVRA requires that a district court include the losses that a defendant proximately causes in its complete restitution determination. Remanded with directions that the district court ensure that it rests its restitution calculation on non-speculative evidence of losses that Victim has incurred or will likely incur. View "State v. Ogden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of criminal homicide murder for killing Shannon Lopez. Defendant’s defense at trial was that Shannon shot herself. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in (1) admitting expert testimony that assessed Shannon’s risk of suicide, and (2) admitting evidence that Defendant had previously pointed a gun at Shannon’s had and had leveled a gun at an ex-wife and threatened to kill her. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the State did not lay a sufficient foundation to demonstrate that the theory its expert employed could be reliably used to assess the suicide risk of someone who had died; (2) the district court erred by admitting the evidence of Defendant’s prior actions; and (3) the errors were harmful. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of criminal homicide murder for killing Shannon Lopez. Defendant’s defense at trial was that Shannon shot herself. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in (1) admitting expert testimony that assessed Shannon’s risk of suicide, and (2) admitting evidence that Defendant had previously pointed a gun at Shannon’s had and had leveled a gun at an ex-wife and threatened to kill her. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the State did not lay a sufficient foundation to demonstrate that the theory its expert employed could be reliably used to assess the suicide risk of someone who had died; (2) the district court erred by admitting the evidence of Defendant’s prior actions; and (3) the errors were harmful. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The court of appeals affirmed the determination of the district court that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioner’s motions challenging the order of the Board of Pardons and Parole requiring him to pay restitution as untimely and therefore legally invalid.Petitioner was convicted of automobile homicide and served a five-year sentence. Following his release, the Board ordered Petitioner to pay $7,000 of restitution toward his victim’s funeral expenses. Petitioner filed various motions with the sentencing court challenging the restitution order. The district court denied the motions on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in the basis of Utah Code 77-27-6(4), holding that judicial review of the Parole Board’s restitution order is expressly foreclosed by statute. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Unavailability of witnesses for trial may not be established merely on the basis of an illness on the particular day a trial is scheduled by a court. Rather, there must be a showing that the illness is of such an extended duration that a reasonable continuance would not allow the witness to testify.The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s aggravated robbery conviction but affirmed Defendant’s possession of a firearm by a restricted conviction. The court held (1) the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting preliminary hearing testimony under Utah R. Evid. 804 because the witness in question was not unavailable for trial under the standard clarified in this opinion and because the testimony was inadmissible because Defendant’s motive to cross-examine the witnesses at the preliminary hearing was not similar to the one he would have at trial; and (2) any error in admitting evidence of field test results, offered to confirm that a substance found on Defendant was marijuana, was harmless. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the Board of Pardons and Parole on the question of whether it violated the due process rights of Michael Neese, a Utah prison inmate, under Utah Const. art. I, 7.The Parole Board denied Neese - who had never been convicted of a sex offense, subjected to prison discipline for sexual misconduct, or otherwise adjudicated a sexual offender - an original release date for parole largely based on its determination that he was a sex offender and his refusal to participate in sex offender treatment. Neese filed a pro se petition for a writ of extraordinary release, arguing that the Parole Board violated his due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the Parole Board, concluding that Neese received due process under the Utah Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that before the Parole Board may take the refusal of inmates in the position of Neese to participate in sex offender treatment into consideration in deciding whether to grant them parole, it owes them additional procedural protections described in this opinion. View "Neese v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendants’ motion to suppress the result of a search executed pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant was signed by a magistrate and executed by the police. Defendants moved under the state and federal constitutions to suppress the result of the search, challenging the magistrate’s probable cause determination. The district court found that there was no probable cause but that the federal good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. When Defendants again moved to suppress, the court suppressed the evidence under the state constitution, concluding that there was no state good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court reversed without reaching the questions of whether the court has recognized an exclusionary rule under the Utah Constitution or whether there should be a good faith exception to such a rule, holding that there was a substantial basis for the magistrate’s probable cause determination. View "State v. Rowan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to aggravated murder and other offenses and no contest plea to three counts of attempted aggravated murder. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the Plea Withdrawal Statute, Utah Code 77-13-6, provides that a “request to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest…shall be made by motion before sentence is announced.” On appeal, Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the statute and contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered the plea agreement. The Supreme Court held (1) the jurisdictional bar imposed by the Plea Withdrawal Statute does not deprive a defendant of his constitutional right to an appeal; and (2) Appellant did not timely move to withdraw his pleas, and therefore, Appellant forfeited his right to direct appeal. View "State v. Allgier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Gailey v. State, 379 P.3d 1278, that the Plea Withdrawal Statute “does not on its face violate the constitutional right to appeal” but also decided an issue that the Gailey majority did not reach, holding that Utah’s Plea Withdrawal Statute, Utah Code 77-13-6, is constitutional as applied because the statute does not foreclose an appeal but simply sets a rule of preservation and imposes the sanction of waiver of the issue on appeal for the failure to follow that rule.Defendant pled guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant attempted to withdraw his guilty plea by submitting a pro se letter to the district court. Defendant’s subsequently acquired counsel, however, successfully moved to withdraw Defendant’s pro se motion. Defendant appealed, seeking to set aside his guilty plea. Specifically, Defendant argued that the district court erred in accepting his plea, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, and that the Plea Withdrawal Statute is unconstitutional because it infringes on his right to appeal under Utah Const. art. I, 12. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s constitutional challenges to the statute failed. View "State v. Rettig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating D.G. and R.G. delinquent for committing aggravated sexual assault. The juvenile court denied the motions filed by D.G. and R.G. to suppress their post-Miranda statements regarding the sexual assault to a detective during an interview, and both interviews with the detective regarding the sexual assault were introduced at trial. D.G. and R.G. appealed, arguing that the juvenile court erred in denying the motion to suppress their post-Miranda statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Miranda warnings given to D.G. and R.G. were sufficient according to the standards set by this court and the United States Supreme Court; and (2) both D.G. and R.G. knowingly and voluntarily waived their Miranda rights. View "In re R.G." on Justia Law