Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of lewdness by a sex offender and vacated the conviction, holding that the court of appeals erred in upholding the district court's admission of other acts evidence.During trial, the State sought to introduce evidence of four prior occasions when Defendant had been accused of exposing and/or stimulating himself in public. The district court admitted the evidence over Defendant's objection, concluding that the doctrine of chances permitted the State to introduce the evidence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if the doctrine of chances is remain part of this jurisprudence, it needs to be more carefully explained and more precisely employed; and (2) the doctrine of chances was not correctly applied to admit the evidence in this case. View "State v. Richins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of distributing or arranging to distribute a controlled substance, holding that Defendant's trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient in not requesting a jury instruction pursuant to State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986), about the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification.During trial, Defendant's counsel presented a theory of mistaken identification in his opening and closing arguments and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses about weaknesses in their testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that his trial counsel's failure to request a Long instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Long does not apply to "real-time identifications," such as the identification in this case. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' holding that Long did not apply but nevertheless affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred when it ruled that Long applies only to "memory-based" identifications; and (2) a reasonable, competent lawyer could have chosen not to request a Long instruction in this case. View "State v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of accomplice to aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, under a theory of accomplice liability, holding that the trial court gave an erroneous mens rea instruction to which trial counsel should have objected and this failure to object prejudiced Defendant.At issue was a jury instruction detailing the mens rea required to convict under an accomplice-liability theory. On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury instruction was erroneous and that trial counsel was deficient in failing to object to it. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the instructions adequately instructed the jury on accomplice liability for aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the jury instruction at issue was erroneous and that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to object to it; and (2) trial counsel's deficient performance prejudiced Defendant. View "State v. Eyre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals rejecting Defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that a factfinder may consider extrinsic evidence of the sexual purpose of a person charged with producing a visual depiction of murder.Defendant was convicted of thirty-three counts of child sex crimes, including aggravated sexual abuse of a child and forcible sodomy of a child. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial counsel was ineffective based on his failure to object to the prosecutor's request that the jury consider Defendant's subjective intentions in deciding whether Exhibits 21 and 22 - two photographs obtained from Defendant's laptop - qualified as child pornography under Utah law. The court of appeals concluded that Defendant had asserted a successful claim for ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to Exhibit 22 but not Exhibit 21 and reversed Defendant's conviction based on Exhibit 22. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not identify a basis for challenging the State's invitation for the jury to consider Defendant's subjective intention in creating an image that qualified as child pornography as a depiction of child nudity for the purpose of sexual arousal under Utah Code 76-5b-103(10)(f). View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to vacate his felony discharge of a firearm convictions under the doctrine of merger, holding that Utah Code 76-5-203(5)(a) expressly forecloses merger for all offenses described in subsection (1) of the murder statute but does not explicitly extend to the crime of attempted murder.Defendant was convicted of both felony discharge of a firearm and attempted murder. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the felony discharge counts under the doctrine of merger, asserting that the two sets of charges arose out of the "same acts" and were thus subject to merger under Utah Code 76-1-402(1). The district court denied the motion, concluding that it could address concerns regarding evidentiary overlap as a matter of sentencing. The court did so by imposing sentences that were to run concurrently. The court of appeals affirmed on the basis that "the prohibition against a predicate offense merging with murder also prevents that offense from merging with attempted merger." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislature has not explicitly stated its intent to foreclose the general rules of merger as applied to the crime of attempted murder. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of sexual battery, holding that the victim's testimony was materially consistent and sufficient to support Defendant's conviction.Defendant's conviction was based primarily on testimony from the victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the victim's testimony was so inherently improbable that it could not support a finding of guilt. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant does not need to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim at a bench trial to preserve the issue for appeal; and (2) the victim's testimony was far from inherently improbable but was, rather, overwhelmingly and materially consistent and sufficient to support a conviction. View "State v. Jok" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault and remanded with resentencing instructions to merge the two charges and affirmed his convictions, holding that Defendant's remaining claims of error were unavailing.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it allowed a recording of Defendant's police interview to go back to the jury room during deliberations; (2) Defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective for agreeing to the jury instruction defining "attempt" or for failing to make an unfair prejudice objection to a jail officer's testimony; and (3) the trial court should have merged the charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault because the same acts satisfied the elements of each charge. View "State v. Wyatt" on Justia Law

In this civil action for reimbursement of attorney fees incurred in the successful defense of criminal charges the Supreme Court held that Utah Code 52-6-201 did not require Bret Rawson P.C. to subtract a donation made from a legal defense fund in calculating "reasonable attorney fees and court costs."Defendant, a West Valley City police officer, was charged with manslaughter arising out of conduct in the line of duty. After a preliminary hearing, the charge was dismissed. Defendant assigned his claim to a right of reimbursement of his attorney fees to Rawson. Rawson then filed this action seeking reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees under section 52-6-201. West Valley City filed a motion asserting that the amount of available fees was limited in two ways. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded, holding (1) the district court properly found that a $60,000 donation by a legal defense fund should not be subtracted from the total amount of fees "necessarily incurred" in the defense of the charge against Defendant; and (2) as to the City's argument that the amount of fees "necessarily incurred" was capped by a flat fee agreement entered into between Defendant's defense team and his counsel, the case must be remanded for further proceedings. View "West Valley City v. Rawson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the denial of post conviction relief sought by Defendant, holding that Defendant's claims failed.Defendant was convicted of sexually molesting his daughter. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. Defendant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The reviewing court concluded that the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), Utah Code 78B-9-101-110, barred Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel but allowed Defendant's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims to proceed. The court then denied relief. On appeal, the court of appeals held (1) the PCRA barred Defendant's "direct" claims, and (2) appellate counsel was de facto not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the PRCA barred Defendant's direct claims against his trial counsel; and (2) Defendant's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims were without merit. View "McCloud v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this case in which Petitioner filed a petition for extraordinary relief challenging the decision of the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole rescinding Petitioner's parole date based on unadjudicated allegations that Petitioner had abused a child and supplied a minor with drugs and alcohol, holding that the case was moot.In her petition for extraordinary relief, Petitioner argued that the Board's decision to rescind her parole date violated her state and constitutional rights and asked that her original parole date be reinstated. The district court granted summary judgment for the State. After Petitioner filed this appeal, the Board paroled her. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot, holding that Petitioner's case was moot and that Petitioner did not demonstrate that the public interest exception applied. View "Widdison v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole" on Justia Law