The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction, finding overwhelming evidence that thirteen shots were retaliatory rather than justified defense.
The Utah Court of Appeals vacated an aggravated-assault conviction for insufficient evidence but affirmed sexual-abuse and object-rape convictions.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed child-sex-abuse convictions while a concurrence criticized an unbalanced verdict-urging instruction.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed rape and forcible-sodomy convictions, holding that an ambiguous reference to counsel did not end police questioning.
The Utah Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported a fatal negligent-driving conviction and that any speeding-instruction error was harmless.
The Utah Court of Appeals declined to overrule State v. Heath and affirmed object-rape and sexual-abuse convictions against evidentiary and due-process challenges.
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed child-sex-abuse convictions after finding waiver, inadequate preservation, and no deficient performance across multiple trial challenges.
The Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed that amended post-conviction claims must satisfy rule 15(c)’s relation-back standard and upheld the PCRA’s one-year deadline.
The Utah Supreme Court held that a DUI defendant properly invoked extraordinary-writ review but denied relief because the requested constitutional ruling was unlikely to change his prosecution.
The Utah Court of Appeals held that negligent charging delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment where claimed parole and plea consequences were speculative.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed child-sex-abuse and witness-tampering convictions, finding no material Brady violation or prejudicial attorney error.
The Utah Court of Appeals held that retaining stolen property can continue until possession ends, making the prosecution of a stolen skid steer timely.
A divided Utah Supreme Court held that a prosecutor may file a delinquency petition after an ineligible minor received a nonjudicial adjustment from probation.
The Utah Supreme Court held that violating the rule governing nighttime warrant service does not itself require suppression without a constitutional violation, bad faith, or prejudice.
The Utah Court of Appeals vacated a DUI conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to suppress a breath test after bodycam footage showed the defendant biting his fingernails continuously for over two minutes during the Baker pre-test observation period — a question of first impression establishing that fingernail contact constitutes introduction of a foreign object requiring the Baker clock to restart.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a child, holding that Utah Rule of Evidence 404(c) requires no similarity between prior child molestation acts and the charged offense for propensity evidence to be admissible, and that trial counsel was not ineffective for retaining a juror whose troubling statements during voir dire were followed by an audible chuckle and an express affirmation of the presumption of innocence.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized in plain view during a traffic stop, holding that an officer’s probable cause determination was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances even though the detective’s body camera was not recording and subsequent field tests on the seized baggie returned negative or inconclusive results.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Aaron Verive’s four class B misdemeanor convictions for unlawful detention and domestic violence in the presence of a child, holding that momentarily blocking a preferred exit—whether a doorway or a vehicle—satisfies the unlawful detention statute regardless of duration or alternative routes, and that events immediately following the charged acts were intrinsic evidence outside Rule 404(b)’s other-acts exclusion.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed six sexual-abuse convictions, holding that uncharged grooming conduct is admissible as intrinsic evidence outside Rule 404(b), that a charging variance between the information and the acts proven at trial raises sufficiency and notice issues—not jurisdictional ones—and that failure to seek a trial continuance upon discovering the variance waives procedural-due-process claims.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a child enticement conviction, holding that the sufficiency-of-evidence inquiry is subjective—asking whether this defendant believed the persona was a minor—and that entrapment as a matter of law requires more than a realistic undercover persona; here, the defendant’s own texts and statements showed actual knowledge of the victim’s age and independent criminal initiative.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for aggravated burglary and related charges, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in declining to challenge for cause three jurors who raised their hands to leading voir dire questions and then affirmed their ability to follow jury instructions in response to the prosecutor’s follow-up.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a restitution order for an aggravated kidnapping victim’s mother, holding that a medical form attributing her PTSD to the crime, her own written statements, and a UOVC restitution specialist’s declaration—taken together—provided sufficient evidence of proximate causation for her lost wages.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed a grant of post-conviction relief, holding that the post-conviction court improperly applied the Chadwick presumption of prejudice to an ineffective-assistance claim; under Strickland, Miranda failed to show a reasonable probability that a proper unanimity instruction would have changed the verdict.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a motion to arrest judgment on protective-order-violation convictions — holding that the State sufficiently proved the permanent order’s terms through testimony and a docket entry — but reversed all three convictions on ineffective-assistance grounds because defense counsel failed to seek redaction of a domestic-violence finding in the temporary protective order admitted as a trial exhibit, a finding the court had already ruled irrelevant and whose admission undermined confidence in the verdict.