Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony driving under the influence (DUI) and possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply where law enforcement relied reasonably on then-existing precedent.In affirming Defendant's conviction, the court of appeals held that the police had the reasonable suspicion necessary to temporarily detain Defendant in his vehicle and ask him to step out of it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court repudiates the sweeping language of its opinion in State v. James, 13 P.3d 576 (Utah 2019), and holds that the identity of the opener of a car door may affect the reasonableness of any given police encounter; but (2) the evidence here was not subject to exclusion because the police acted objectively reasonably in reliance on the Supreme Court's opinion in James. View "State v. Malloy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed on all but one issue the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for violation of a protective order, three counts of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, and assault, holding that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on sexual battery as a lesser included offense of the aggravated sexual assault charge based on forcible sexual abuse.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) any error in the jury instructions for aggravated sexual assault and the underlying offenses of rape and forcible sexual abuse were not prejudicial; (2) the district court did not err by not instructing the jury on any of the lesser included offenses Defendant requested, except for sexual battery; and (3) at sentencing, the district court did not err in imposing a punishment of fifteen years to life for aggravated sexual assault. View "State v. Norton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction on the offense of domestic violence in the presence of a child, holding that a jury could not both convict Defendant of the compound offense of domestic violence in the presence of a child and acquit him of the predicate offense of domestic violence assault.Pleasant Grove City charged Defendant with one count of domestic violence assault and one count of commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child. A jury convicted Defendant on the offense of commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child but acquitted him of the offense that predicated the conviction - domestic violence assault. The trial judge did not intervene in the verdict. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction, holding that the verdict in this case was legally impossible and that vacatur of the verdict was required. View "Pleasant Grove City v. Terry" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals related to the seizure of Appellants' property as part of a murder investigation the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court's dismissal of Appellants' causes of action and affirmed the Fourth District Court's denial of attorney fees, holding that the courts did not err.More than twenty years ago, Duchesne county law enforcement seized property belonging to Appellants as part of a murder investigation. Although some of the property was admitted into evidence in the murder trial, most of the property was not used in the criminal proceedings. Years later, Appellants sued the State and Duchesne County in the Third District Court to recover the seized property and for damages. While this litigation was ongoing, Appellants filed a petition to recover property in the Fourth District Court. The Third District Court dismissed the case. The Fourth District Court granted Appellants' petition but denied their motion for attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed both district courts, holding (1) the Third District Court correctly dismissed Appellants' causes of action as being barred by the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code 63G-7-101 to -904; and (2) the Fourth District Court correctly denied attorney fees. View "Pinder v. Duchesne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's convictions.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict and a motion to arrest judgment. Specifically, Defendant argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him because the victim recanted her story that Defendant had inappropriately touched her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jury was entitled to weigh the two versions of the victim's story, consider the other evidence of Defendant's guilt, and decide which version of the victim's story it found to be credible. View "State v. Stricklan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated robbery, holding that the trial court did not plainly err in its handling of the State's reports of a sleeping juror and that defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance.On appeal, Defendant asserted that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because at least one juror allegedly slept during the proceedings. The court of appeals concluded that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court plainly erred in declining to inquire into the attentiveness of the juror and that Defendant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in responding to observations that the juror may have been sleeping. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a trial court should respond to a report of an inattentive or drowsy juror in a manner that is proportional to the report before it, but the trial court in this case did not plainly err in its response; and (2) Defendant failed to show that his counsel's actions were deficient. View "State v. Marquina" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims of interference and negligence, holding that the district court erred in determining that Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs' wells and that remand was necessary on the negligence claim to consider whether it survives the dismissal of Plaintiffs' interference claims.Plaintiffs diverted their water obtained through their water rights through the use of two wells. Defendant had a junior water right and operated five wells that were deeper and stronger than Plaintiffs' wells. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit alleging interference and negligence, claiming that Defendant interfered with their water rights because when one of Defendant's wells operated it lowered the water table and put the available water beyond the reach of Plaintiffs' pumps. The district ruled in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's determination of interference, holding that Plaintiff failed to prove interference; and (2) declined to reverse the negligence ruling but, in light of the reversal of the district court's interference determinations, remanded this claim for reconsideration and further fact-finding, if necessary. View "Arave v. Pineview West Water Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals setting aside the adoption decree in this case, holding that the district court's conclusions of law in support of the adoption decree were inadequate.Mother, a Montana resident, gave birth to a child in Montana. Mother placed the child for adoption with Respondents, two Utah residents. On a form required under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), Utah Code 62a-4a-701 to -711, Mother did not list Petitioner, the child's legal father, as the child's father. Respondents filed an adoption petition and petitioned to terminate Petitioner's parental rights. The district court terminated Petitioner's parental rights and finalized the adoption. The court of appeals set aside the adoption decree because it did not state that the requirements of the ICPC had been complied with, as required by the Adoption Act. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) there was no jurisdictional defect under the ICPC or the Adoption Act; but (2) the district court's conclusions of law in support of the adoption decree were inadequate. View "In re Adoption of B.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals remanding this termination of parental rights case to the juvenile court after clarifying the analysis the juvenile court should have applied when interpreting the termination statute, holding that the court of appeals did not err.The juvenile court found multiple grounds for terminating Father's parental rights and then, in compliance with the statutory framework, concluded that termination was in the children's best interests. The juvenile court then addressed the recent legislative mandate set forth in Utah Code 78A-6-507(1) that termination occur only when it is "strictly necessary" to terminate parental rights. On appeal, Father argued that the juvenile court misinterpreted the "strictly necessary" requirement. The court of appeals clarified the analysis the juvenile court should have employed and remanded the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in disavowing the "almost automatically" language in its case law; (2) the court of appeals properly found that the Termination of Parental Rights Act requires that termination be strictly necessary for the best interests of the child; and (3) the juvenile court should revisit the petition and apply the interpretation of the Act set forth in this petition. View "In re B.T.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court's grant of summary judgment against Defendant's post-conviction claims, holding that Defendant's Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), claim was not cognizable under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA).Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Later, Defendant filed a third state petition for post-conviction relief, including an Atkins claim and twelve additional claims unrelated to Atkins. The post-conviction court concluded that all of Defendant's claims were barred under the PCRA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the PCRA did not provide a remedy for Defendant's Atkins claim; and (2) each of Defendant's remaining claims was procedurally barred. View "Archuleta v. State" on Justia Law