Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of child kidnapping and sentenced to a term of ten years to life. During trial, Defendant moved to put on an expert in eyewitness testimony. The motion was denied because Defendant failed to establish that such testimony was reliable, but the jury was instructed on the issues surrounding eyewitness testimony. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that this case called for the retroactive application of the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Clopten. In Clopten, the Court held that where eyewitness are identifying a stranger, expert eyewitness testimony meets the requirements of Utah R. Evid. 702 if certain established factors affecting accuracy are present. Prior to Clopten, there was a presumption against the admission of eyewitness expert testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Clopten applies retroactively to Defendant’s case; but (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the Clopten standard in denying Defendant’s motion to admit eyewitness expert testimony. View "State v. Guard" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with vaginally raping and orally and anally sodomizing his seven-year-old daughter. The State sought to introduce evidence pursuant to Utah R. Evid. 404(c) that Defendant had previously vaginally raped and orally and anally sodomized two other daughters. The district court ordered that the evidence not be admitted, concluding that the evidence demonstrated a propensity to commit the crime charged but did not pass muster under Utah R. Evid. 403 because it presented a danger of unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard and abused its discretion in how it assessed the similarities between the evidence of prior abuse and the current alleged abuse, as well as the potential prejudice from the evidence of prior abuse; and (2) the evidence of Defendant’s past child molestation conviction was admissible under Rule 403. View "State v. Cuttler" on Justia Law

Defendant was parked on the side of a highway with his hazard lights flashing when two sheriff’s deputies stopped to check on his welfare. The officers subsequently discovered marijuana in Defendant’s vehicle. The State charged Defendant with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his vehicle. The district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the stop was justified by the community caretaking doctrine. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the charges. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the deputies seized Defendant when they pulled behind his parked vehicle with blue and red lights flashing; but (2) the community caretaking doctrine justified the stop under the facts of this case, and therefore, the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated kidnapping, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that prosecutor committed misconduct by calling Defendant’s codefendant to testify when the codefendant had indicated an intention to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) because Defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from the prosecutor’s use of leading questions in questioning the codefendant, Defendant meet his burden of demonstrating prejudice for his unpreserved federal constitutional claim; and (3) Defendant’s lawyers were not ineffective for failing to move to merge the conviction for aggravated kidnapping with the conviction for aggravated murder because such a motion would have been futile. View "State v. Bond" on Justia Law

The State sought and received an order freezing more than $3 million of Frank and Joan Steed’s assets under Utah’s Asset Preservation Statute. The State subsequently filed criminal charges against the Steeds and sought a freeze order to ensure adequate funds would be available for the anticipated restitution award. The district court upheld the freeze order. Thereafter, the Steeds were convicted of three counts of failure to file tax returns and one pattern count of criminal fraud. The Steeds later filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of the Asset Preservation Statute, both facially and as applied. The district court denied the motion. Joan subsequently conceded the issue of technical mootness but argued that the mootness exception applied. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that this case was moot and that Joan’s claims did not warrant the application of the mootness exception. View "State v. Steed" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea-in-abeyance agreement, Defendant pled no contest to charges of possession and use of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant successfully complied with the terms of the agreement, and the justice court withdrew the plea of no contest and dismissed the two drug charges. Thereafter, Defendant filed an action under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) seeking to withdraw his plea in abeyance, arguing that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by improperly advising him that the abeyance plea carried no immigration consequences. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the court could not consider Defendant’s PCRA claim because the only relief available under the PCRA is to set aside a conviction, and the Legislature “did not intend a plea in abeyance to function as either a judgment or a conviction.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Defendant did not qualify for relief under the PCRA because he was never convicted; and (2) the Court declines to exercise its constitutional power to fashion an alternate remedy because Defendant may obtain relief for the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by filing a Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion in the justice court. View "Meza v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of interference with an arresting peace officer and unlawful possession of another’s identification documents. Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawfully possessing another’s Social Security card, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that he knew he was not entitled to possess the card. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to sustain a reasonable inference that Defendant knew he was not entitled to possess the Social Security card. View "Salt Lake City v. Carrera" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve felony counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm. The charges stemmed from Defendant’s act of firing twelve shots at a house in a gang-related drive-by shooting. The trial court merged the twelve counts and sentenced Defendant on the basis of one conviction. The court of appeals reversed and ordered the trial court to resentence Defendant on all twelve convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was permissible for a jury to convict Defendant of twelve counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm in this case because the allowable unit of prosecution for unlawful discharge of a firearm is each discrete shot. View "State v. Rasabout" on Justia Law

This case involved a certification and statement of facts requesting a grand jury filed by the Salt Lake County District Attorney. After a hearing, a special panel of five district judges denied the State’s request, finding that the State had not established good cause to summon a grand jury. Thereafter, the State filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the Supreme Court, claiming that the panel abused its discretion by denying the State’s request. The Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) the Court’s power to issue extraordinary writs gives it jurisdiction to review the panel’s decisions; but (2) the panel did not abuse its discretion in this case, as it acted exactly as it was statutorily directed to act and employed its discretion with care and impartiality. View "State v. Hon. Christiansen" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with eleven counts related to his alleged sexual abuse of C.E. The State requested that a magistrate bind Defendant over for trial. After a hearing, the magistrate concluded that the evidence was so contradictory, inconsistent, and unbelievable that she need not “give credence” to C.E.’s testimony. Because the case depended “solely on the testimony of [C.E.]”, the magistrate granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges, finding that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that Defendant committed the crimes charged. The First Circuit reversed the magistrate’s decision, holding (1) the magistrate exceeded her discretion in disregarding C.E.’s testimony because there was at least a reasonable inference from the evidence that C.E. was telling the truth; and (2) the magistrate exceeded her discretion in refusing to bind Defendant over for trial because C.E.’s testimony described daily sexual abuse over a four-year period. View "State v. Schmidt" on Justia Law