Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of aggravated robbery on the ground that the legal framework established in State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991), is no longer viable and reinstated the jury verdict on the alternative basis that any arguable error in admitting eyewitness identification evidence in this case was harmless.Defendant was convicted based on eyewitness identification testimony and other evidence admitted at trial. The court of appeals reversed the conviction under the reliability factors set forth in Ramirez and on the ground that the improperly admitted eyewitness identifications were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals, however, also raised concerns about the viability of the standard set forth in Ramirez, indicating that the Ramirez framework must be revisited. The Supreme Court endorsed the need for revising and updating the factors set forth in Ramirez based on new developments in scientific and legal research regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony. The Court then held (1) admissibility of eyewitness identification testimony is to be measured in the first instance by the rules of evidence; and (2) in this case, any error in admitting such evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Lujan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the Office of Public Guardian's (OPG) petition for extraordinary relief after the juvenile court appointed OPG as guardian ad litem for Mother in a parental rights proceeding, holding that the juvenile court went beyond the bounds of its discretion by appointing OPG in this matter.Before appointing OPG as Mother's guardian ad litem, the juvenile court noted that, under its reading of the Utah Code, OPG could petition or agree to represent Mother in termination proceedings. The juvenile court then ordered OPG to "represent" mother in the proceedings. OPG petitioned for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding (1) OPG can seek extraordinary relief because it lacked a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to address its appointment; (2) the juvenile court has inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an adult; but (3) the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by appointing the OPG as guardian ad litem in this case. View "In re G.J.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, in which Appellant raised two new arguments, from the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea under Utah Code 77-13-6, the Plea Withdrawal Statute, holding that the Plea Withdrawal Statute prohibited this Court from considering Appellant's unpreserved arguments.Appellant pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Before sentencing, Appellant moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed and raised two new arguments under the plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel exceptions to the preservation rule. The court of appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court for original appellate review. The Supreme Court held (1) the Plea Withdrawal Statute prevents this Court from considering Appellant's unpreserved arguments; and (2) defendants may not rely on preservation exceptions when appealing the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. View "State v. Flora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that it acted jurisdiction to hear Defendant's unpreserved claim on appeal, holding that Utah's Plea Withdrawal Statute, Utah Code 77-13-6, bars review of unpreserved claims raised as part of an appeal from the denial of a timely plea-withdrawal motion.Defendant pled guilty to attempted murder. Before he was sentenced Defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed this denial and raised a new challenge under the plain error exception to the preservation rule. The court of appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's unpreserved claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the Plea Withdrawal Statute bars appellate review of unpreserved claims raised as part of an appeal of a timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea. View "State v. Badikyan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of two of four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor but reversed the district court on the remaining two convictions, holding that the second and fourth counts of sexual exploitation of a minor did not meet the Sexual Exploitation Act's definition of simulated sexually explicit conduct.Appellant was charged with four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after he was discovered in his middle school classroom where he taught with scrapbooks containing pornographic images of adults and images of underage, and sometimes nude, girls. Appellant entered a Sery plea of no contest and then appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's two of the counts of sexual exploitation of a minor but reversed the district court on the remaining two counts, holding that the district court did not err in interpreting the Act but that there was insufficient evidence to convict Defendant on counts two and four. View "State v. Hatfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal challenging the district court's determination that he did not have standing to establish paternity of his biological daughter under the Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA), holding that Plaintiff did not preserve his arguments that the UUPA is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.During her marriage with Husband Mother engaged in a relationship with Plaintiff during which a child was conceived and born. After Mother and Husband began divorce proceedings Plaintiff intervened in the proceedings, alleging that he was the biological father of the child. The district court concluded that Plaintiff lacked standing to assert his parentage claim and further concluded that Plaintiff had abandoned his paternity claim entirely. The Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding Plaintiff waived any claim to challenge Husband's presumed paternity because he did not challenge the district court's finding that he abandoned his paternity claim. View "Hinkle v. Jacobsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's action seeking to establish his paternity of a child born to Mother, who was married to Husband, holding that section 78B-15-602 of the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA), Utah Code 78B-15-101 to -902, grants standing to Plaintiff and that subsection 607(1) does not revoke that standing when the child has a presumed father.During Mother's relationship with Plaintiff they conceived a child. Mother and Husband remained married. Plaintiff filed a petition in the district court to challenge Husband's presumed paternity and assert his own parentage. Mother filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that subsection 78B-15-607(1) of the UUPA denied Plaintiff standing. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 78B-15-602 grants standing to alleged fathers seeking to adjudicate their paternity, and nothing in subsection 607(1) revokes that standing. View "Castro v. Lemus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition to adjudicate his paternity of a child he conceived with Mother while she was married to Father, holding that the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA) granted standing to Plaintiff to adjudicate his paternity of the child.In her motion to dismiss Mother argued that Plaintiff lacked standing under the UUPA to bring his petition because the child was born within a marriage. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that to deny Plaintiff standing would violate his procedural due process right under the federal constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on alternative grounds, holding that the UUPA grants standing to Plaintiff, and this standing is not altered when the child was conceived or born during a marriage with a presumed father. View "Olguin v. Anderton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment permitting Husband to rescind his voluntary denial of paternity of a child on the basis of mutual and unilateral mistake of fact and later granting Husband's petition declaring him to be the child's legal father, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiff's paternity petition, holding that the district court erred in allowing rescission of the denial.During her marriage to Husband, Mother had a sexual relationship with Plaintiff and became pregnant. Before the child's birth, Plaintiff filed a paternity petition in the district court. After the child's birth, genetic testing established that the child was Plaintiff's biological daughter. Husband signed a voluntary denial of paternity renouncing his paternity of the child. Mother moved to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, arguing that he lacked standing under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act to challenge Husband's presumed paternity. Simultaneously, Husband petitioned the district court to declare him to be the child's legal father. The district court allowed rescission of the denial and granted Husband's petition for declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where the mistake was not a mistake of fact but, rather, a mistake regarding the legal consequences of signing the declaration and denial, Husband should not have been permitted to rescind the denial. View "Mackley v. Openshaw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed as moot this petition addressing whether a law firm that deposited funds from a client into its trust account was a "transferee" under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), Utah Code 25-6-1 to -14, holding that Petitioners had no remedy under the UFTA because they were no longer creditors.The district court granted partial summary judgment for Respondents, the law firm and a lawyer, concluding that they were immune from liability on the fraudulent transfer claims because they were not transferees under the UFTA. While the case was pending before the court of appeals, Petitioners allowed the judgment that formed the basis of their fraudulent-transfer claim to expire. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. On appeal, Respondents argued that even if Petitioners were to prevail on the transferee issue, it would not affect their rights because the fraudulent transfer claims became moot when the judgment expired. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the court of appeals' decision, holding that the case became moot before the court of appeals' opinion issued. View "Timothy v. Pia, Anderson, Dorius, Reynard & Moss, LLC" on Justia Law