Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated murder, possession of a dangerous weapon by restricted person, and obstruction of justice. Brandon Wright, one of the State’s witnesses at trial, testified that Petitioner admitted to the aggravated murder when they were both serving prison time. While Petitioner’s appeal was pending, Wright confessed to an unrelated twenty-year-old murder. Based on Wright’s confession, Petitioner petitioned for extraordinary relief, asserting that unless the Court exercises its authority to issue an extraordinary writ, he will be unable to seek a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence until after he has exhausted his direct appeal. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing that the newly discovered impeachment evidence in this case justifies the Court issuing an extraordinary writ. View "Logue v. Court of Appeals" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with burglary, theft, and criminal mischief. In the course of one day, Defendant entered her initial appearance in district court, was appointed counsel, waived her right to a preliminary hearing, pled guilty, waived the minimum two-day waiting period for sentencing, and received judgment and sentence. Defendant filed a notice of appeal without filing a motion to withdraw her plea, challenging her plea as unknowingly and involuntary. Although the plea withdrawal statute cuts of a defendant’s right to a direct appeal once sentencing is announced, Defendant argued that the plea withdrawal statute merely allows a defendant to pursue either a direct appeal or postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in accordance with caselaw, the plea withdrawal statute bars direct appeals once sentencing takes place, thus requiring defendants to pursue post-conviction relief; and (2) because Defendant had not pursued a Post-Conviction Remedies Act proceeding, her claims were not ripe for review. View "State v. Gailey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. The jury imposed a sentence of life without parole. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a rule 23B hearing addressing Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court stayed the remainder of Defendant’s appeal pending the outcome of those proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain DNA and mtDNA evidence; (2) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) even if the remainder of Defendant’s claims established errors, any such errors would not have resulted in a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant was convicted of murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition under Part 3 of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act seeking testing on previously untested items from the murder scene and arguing that the DNA testing would prove his factual innocence. The State subsequently filed a response asking the district court to dismiss Appellant’s petition. Before Appellant had an opportunity to oppose the State’s filing, the district court dismissed Appellant’s petition on the grounds that Appellant failed to establish a non-tactical reason for declining DNA testing at trial. Thereafter, the district court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in refusing to allow Defendant an opportunity to file a response to the State’s opposition to his petition under Utah R. Civ. P. 65C. Remanded. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant was convicted of murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition under Part 3 of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act seeking testing on previously untested items from the murder scene and arguing that the DNA testing would prove his factual innocence. The State subsequently filed a response asking the district court to dismiss Appellant’s petition. Before Appellant had an opportunity to oppose the State’s filing, the district court dismissed Appellant’s petition on the grounds that Appellant failed to establish a non-tactical reason for declining DNA testing at trial. Thereafter, the district court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in refusing to allow Defendant an opportunity to file a response to the State’s opposition to his petition under Utah R. Civ. P. 65C. Remanded. View "Gordon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial held in 1999, Appellant was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence. The convictions were affirmed on appeal and upheld on multiple postconviction challenges in both state and federal court. Appellant here filed a petition for postconviction DNA testing, claiming that DNA testing will show his factual innocence. The district court denied Appellant’s petition, concluding that the DNA testing did not have the potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that would establish Appellant’s factual innocence under Utah Code 78B-9-301(2)(f). The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court’s analysis of the operative terms of the statute was only partially in accordance with the law. Remanded. View "Meinhard v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial held in 1999, Appellant was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence. The convictions were affirmed on appeal and upheld on multiple postconviction challenges in both state and federal court. Appellant here filed a petition for postconviction DNA testing, claiming that DNA testing will show his factual innocence. The district court denied Appellant’s petition, concluding that the DNA testing did not have the potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that would establish Appellant’s factual innocence under Utah Code 78B-9-301(2)(f). The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that the district court’s analysis of the operative terms of the statute was only partially in accordance with the law. Remanded. View "Meinhard v. State" on Justia Law

Monsour Al Shammari, a citizen of Saudia Arabia, was arrested and charged with rape. The Royal Consulate of Saudia Arabia provided the cash funds to post bail. Al Shammari subsequently attempted to cross the border into Mexico but was detained by the United States Customs and Border Patrol. Thereafter, Al Shammari failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, and the district court ordered the cash bail forfeited. Al Shammari moved to set aside the order of forfeiture, contending that the forfeiture was procedurally deficient because the Consulate was not given notice. The district court ordered the bail forfeited, concluding that the Consulate was not a “surety” for purposes of Chapters 20 and 20b of Title 77 of the Utah Code. The Supreme Court denied the Consulate’s petition for extraordinary relief, concluding that the Consulate was not a surety that was constitutionally or statutorily entitled to notice. View "Royal Consulate v. Hon. Pullen" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with official misconduct under Utah Code 76-8-201 and with witness tampering under Utah Code 76-8-508(1). At a preliminary hearing, the magistrate judge refused to bind Defendant over for trial, concluding that the State had not met its burden of presenting sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that Defendant had committed witness tampering or official misconduct. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the magistrate and court of appeals erred in weighing the evidence in search of the most reasonable inference; and (2) the State presented evidence supporting a reasonable belief that each offense in question was committed by Defendant. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Petitioner’s son assaulted Petitioner’s co-worker. Petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault because phone records showed that calls were made Petitioner’s phone and his son’s phone just before and after the assault. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting preliminary hearing testimony about the phone records from a detective who had dried before trial and that his lawyer’s objection on this point violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in admitting the detective’s testimony was not invited because there was no clear affirmative statement by counsel inviting the court to err; and (2) even if the trial court erred in admitting the detective’s testimony, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the admission of the testimony. View "State v. McNeil" on Justia Law