Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court rejecting the State's interpretation of Utah Const. art. I, section 8(1) to mandate that a judge deny bail to a defendant charged with a felony if that defendant is already serving probation on a felony conviction, holding that there was no error.Defendant was serving probation when he was charged with felony crimes in both Salt Lake and Davis counties. At the Davis County bail hearing the State argued that Utah Const. art. I, section 8(1) mandates that a judge deny bail to a defendant charged with a felony if that defendant is already serving probation on a felony conviction. The district court disagreed with the State's interpretation and set bail. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that it could grant Defendant bail. View "State v. Barnett" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the denial of a post-conviction determination of factual innocence pursuant to the Post-Conviction Remedies Act the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court, holding that further proceedings were required in accordance with the legal standards set forth in this opinion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child for allegedly abusing her son, Kevin. Approximately one decade later Defendant recanted his statements. Based on the recantation, Defendant filed his petition for a post-conviction determination of factual innocence. The district court denied the petition after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) Kevin's recantation, if believable, was sufficient to prove Defendant's factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the district court erred in denying the petition without weighing all of the relevant evidence, assessing credibility, or making an ultimate finding on the recantation's veracity; and (3) to the extent the district court made an implicit credibility determination, it was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding that certain facts were disputed. View "Ashby v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of aggravated arson, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that Defendant's counsel did not render ineffective assistance.On appeal, Defendant argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict and by failing to object to the testimony of an expert who opined that the structure Defendant had set fire to was habitable. A divided court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) reasonable counsel could have decided to forgot a motion for directed verdict; and (2) the court of appeals correctly concluded that Defendant was not deprived of the Sixth Amendment guarantees. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court partially granting summary judgment concluding that a homeowners association (HOA) was entitled to collect past due assessments against Robbie Frank, the trustee of two trusts that each owned a lot within the HOA's boundaries, but that a bench trial was necessary to determine the amount owing, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Frank argued (1) the documents establishing the HOA were void as against public policy and that void documents cannot be ratified, and (2) in the alternative, the district court erred in determining that ratification had occurred in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the governing documents were merely voidable, not absolutely void; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that the HOA had authority to assess the properties because the HOA members collectively ratified the HOA's authority. View "Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Phase II v. Frank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs' respondeat superior-related claims, holding that the district court correctly held that respondeat superior principles did not make the remaining defendants in this case vicariously responsible for the abuse committed by a physician assistant and that the Utah Physician Assistant Act did not change that conclusion.Plaintiff brought an action against Alta Pain Physicians; Oscar Johnson, a physician assistant; and Dr. Michael Chen, Johnson's supervising physician, alleging that Johnson subjected her to sexual harassment and abuse when she saw him for pain treatment at Alta Pain. After Plaintiff settled her claims against Johnson the district court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Chen and Alta Pain on Plaintiff's claims of sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in entering summary judgment on Plaintiff's respondeat superior-based claims; and (2) Plaintiff did not met her burden of convincing the Court to overturn precedent and use a foreseeability test for plaintiffs to recover against employers of abusive employees. View "Burton v. Chen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this interlocutory appeal of the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress calls made by Defendant on the Salt Lake County Jail's telephones and recorded by the jail, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the conditions the jail had placed on the use of its phones.Defendant was charged with kidnapping and assaulting his wife and made hundreds of calls to his wife from the jail. The State moved to admit recording of several of those phone calls and filed new charges based on the recordings. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the recordings in both cases. The Supreme Court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant impliedly consented to the interception of the phone calls and that the calls were exempt under the law enforcement exception to Utah's Interception of Communications Act, Utah Code 77-23a-1 to -16. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant impliedly consented to the jail's recording of his phone calls, and therefore, the interception of Defendant's calls was authorized under the Interception Act's consent exception. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Public Service Commission (PSC) denying in part and granting in part motions for reconsideration of an order it issued setting forth the inputs it would use to calculate the export credit rate (ECR), holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction as to certain issues and, as to the two remaining issues, the PSC did not exceed the bounds of its authority.The export credit rate system at issue in this case was created to eventually replace the "net metering" program for customers who generated electricity. The PSC engaged in a lengthy public process to decide what factors to consider in calculating the ECR. After the PSC issued an order setting forth the inputs to use for the ECR Appellants filed motions for reconsideration. The PSC granted in part the motions, agreeing to reconsider some of the ECR calculation's components. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as to issues for which the Court lacked jurisdiction and otherwise denied the motion, holding that the PSC did not exceed the bounds of its authority. View "Vote Solar v. Public Service Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals dismissing as untimely Mother's appeal from the juvenile court's termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father, holding that Mother's time to file a notice of appeal was extended in this case.After a hearing, the juvenile court terminated entered an order terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to their two children. Father timely filed his notice of appeal, but the court of appeals determined that Mother's appeal was not filed within fifteen days of the termination order, as required by Utah R. App. P. 52(a). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that Utah R. App. P. 52(c), together with Father's appeal, extended Mother's time to file a notice of appeal. View "In re C.D.S." on Justia Law

In this ongoing sexual abuse of a child case the Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion filed under rule 4-202.04 of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration seeking access to F.L.'s therapy records that the trial court sealed after its in camera review, holding that the balance of interests weighed in favor of keeping F.L.'s therapy records sealed during appellate review.Defendant was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a child, F.L. In preparing his defense, Defendant requested that the trial court order in camera review of the records of multiple entities that had provided mental health services to F.L. and that the record contained references "to this incidents alleged to have occurred" in his case. The court authorized in camera review of the records, provided Defendant with relevant portions of the records, and then sealed them. After Defendant was convicted on one count, he appealed. The court of appeals unsealed the therapy records, and Defendant used them to prepare his appellate brief. F.L. requested that the court of appeals re-seal her records, which the court did. The Supreme Court denied Defendant's request to access the records, holding that the interests favoring the records' closure outweighed those favoring Defendant's access. View "State v. Chadwick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for sexually assaulting six women, holding that the doctrine of chances precedent should be abandoned in favor of a plain-test reading of rules 402, 403 and 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that under rules 404(b) and 403 and the doctrine of chances, the district court erred in allowing the admission of other acts evidence to show that he sexually assaulted a particular victim. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) in an analysis of whether the district court erred in admitting the other-acts evidence under the rules of evidence, without reference to the doctrine of chances, there was no error in the district court's other-acts evidence determination; (2) most of Defendant's hearsay claims were properly admitted consistent with exemptions to the hearsay rule, and any errors in admitting statements that should have been excluded as hearsay were harmless; and (3) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unavailing. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law