Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction on a misdemeanor charge of threatening to use a dangerous weapon in a quarrel with his father, holding that Defendant identified no basis for reversal.The district court concluded that Defendant's "use or threat of the weapon under the circumstances was not necessary or reasonable" and found him guilty as charged. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in affirming the conviction under an "objective standard of reasonableness." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not establish that the court of appeals adopted a standard of reasonableness that differed from the one articulated in this opinion; and (2) Defendant failed to show that there was error in the application of the statutory standard in the district court. View "State v. Sorbonne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Petitioners' petition for satisfaction of judgment but remanded for correction of a clerical error, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to satisfaction of a judgment.Petitioners were convicted of twelve counts of theft in connection with a real estate deal with entered into with Kerry and Bobbie Posey. As part of a settlement, the Poseys released all civil claims they had against Defendants. In their criminal cases, Petitioners argued that the district court could not base a restitution order on claims for which the Poseys had been remunerated. The district court denied the argument and ordered restitution. The court of appeals affirmed, and the restitution order transformed into a civil judgment. Petitioners then filed a satisfaction of judgment in an effort to extinguish the judgment. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the settlement agreement Petitioners entered into with the Poseys did not entitle them to a satisfaction of a judgment. View "State v. Diderickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the restitution order of the district court in connection with Defendant's conviction of theft and theft by deception and otherwise affirmed, holding that litigation expenses incurred in collateral litigation are an appropriate element of restitution under the Crime Victims Restitution Act.On appeal from her conviction and sentence, Defendant challenged the decision to include certain fees in the restitution order and further raised a series of objections to the inclusion of certain electronic transfers in the calculation of the amount of the victims' losses. The State confessed error as to certain transfers, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an amended order of restitution but rejected Defendant's other contentions. The Supreme Court remanded to the district court to allow it to enter an amended restitution order excluding the amounts of the four subject transactions but otherwise affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish any ground for questioning any of the other electronic transfers in question. View "State v. Sevastopoulos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's dismissal of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that there was no error.Testing of a buccal swab of Defendant's cheek showed that Defendant was a genetic match for DNA found on evidence at the scene of a murder. Prior to his criminal trial, Defendant moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing that the forcible collection of the sample had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Defendant of murder, aggravated burglary, and possession of a weapon by a restricted person. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the buccal swab, nor did it err in rejecting Defendant's statutory arguments. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court in this criminal case repudiated the sweeping language of its opinion in State v. James, 13 P.3d 576 (Utah 2000), and held that it can no longer be said that it makes no constitutional difference, as regards community caretaking concerns, whether a police officer opens a car door or asks a driver to do so.Defendant was charged with felony DUI and possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered after an officer looked inside his pickup truck, which was parked in a store parking lot, opened the truck door, and saw evidence of drug paraphernalia between Defendant's feet. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed on alternative grounds, holding that the officer was justified in opening the car door incident to a lawful traffic stop under the standard in James. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the identity of the door-opener may well affect the reasonableness of a given police encounter; and (2) the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress was proper under the authority of Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011). View "State v. Malloy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of dealing in material harmful to a minor, a third degree felony under Utah Code 76-10-1206, holding that Defendant's argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied failed.As part of a sexually explicit online chat, Defendant sent photographs of women with nude breasts to someone who he thought was an underage girl. Defendant was convicted of dealing in material harmful to a minor, in violation of section 76-10-1206. On appeal, Defendant argued that because the photographs he sent did not depict sexual activity they could not qualify as obscenity, and therefore, the photographs were protected speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where nudity may be obscene to minors without depicting sexual conduct, Defendant's argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to his conduct failed. View "State v. Watts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of distribution of or arranging to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's challenge brought under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State violated his right to equal protection when it used a peremptory strike to remove the only person of color from the jury pool. The trial court denied Defendant's Batson challenge, and the jury subsequently convicted him of drug-related counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's Batson challenge; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Aziakanou" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, holding that law enforcement officers' touch of Defendant's vehicle was supported by probable cause and provided an independent source of the evidence.Upon responding to a 911 call complaining of a person trying to enter a private residence, two police officers encountered a Ford Explorer that looked to be connected to the disturbance. One officer touched the hood to assess the temperature of the engine in order to determine how long the vehicle had been there. The other officer reached into the wheel well on two occasions, and both officers testified that the engine felt hot. Appellant argued that the officers' testimony about her engine's temperature should have been excluded at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the officers' contacts with the vehicle were searches, the automobile exception applied, and the final touch was supported by probable cause. View "State v. Speights" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's post-conviction challenge to his convictions of child sex abuse and other offenses as time-barred under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), Utah Code 78B-9-101-503, holding that Petitioner's arguments on appeal were unavailing.Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to the PCRA the district court for post-conviction relief from his criminal conviction and sentence. The district court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding that the petition was time-barred under the PCRA. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the PCRA's time limitations should be tolled or, alternatively, he can invoke the court's constitutional writ power outside the PCRA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the PCRA time-barred Petitioner's petition; and (2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the application of the time-bar contained in the PCRA to Petitioner's petition violated his rights under the Utah Constitution. View "Patterson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), Utah Code 78B-9-101-110, barred Appellant's claims because they "could have been" brought on appeal, holding that Appellant's claims failed because trial counsel was not ineffective.Appellant was convicted of sexually molesting his daughter. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise ineffectiveness claims on direct appeal. The reviewing court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that the PCRA barred Appellant's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the PCRA barred Appellant's direct claims against his trial counsel; and (2) appellate counsel was not ineffective. View "McCloud v. State" on Justia Law