Utah Law Developments

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 37 No. 1 Pg. 37
• Publication year: 2024
• Pages: 37
• topic: Criminal Law,Civil Procedure

Utah Law Developments Vol. 37 No. 1 Pg. 37 Utah Bar Journal January 2024

Appellate Highlights

January 2024

by Rodney R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Robert Cummings, Nathanael Mitchell, and Andrew Roth

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The following summaries have been prepared by the authoring attorneys listed above, who are solely responsible for their content.

Utah Supreme Court

Ashby v. State

2023 UT 19 (Sept. 14, 2023)

Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based substantially upon the child's testimony. Over a decade later, the child recanted his prior testimony. Defendant filed a post-conviction relief act petition for a determination of actual innocence, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court remanded the case. "Where a defendant is convicted based on uncorroborated witness testimony and that witness later recants under oath, that recantation, if credible, is sufficient to prove factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence."

State v. Barnett

2023 UT 20 (Sept. 21, 2023)

In this appeal from the district court's order setting bail for the defendant who was charged with a felony while serving probation on a felony conviction, the Utah Supreme Court evaluated whether Article I, Section 8(1) of the Utah Constitution mandates that a judge deny bail. After evaluating that provision's text and history, the court held Article I, Section 8(1) guarantees bail to most defendants, but provides that a court may deny it to those who fall within the exceptions of Section 8(1)(a) through (c). A court may grant bail to those defendants who do not have a right to bail.

Utah Court of Appeals

John v. John

2023 UT App 103 (Sept. 14, 2023)

Affirming an order requiring supervised parent time, the court of appeals concluded that evidence of past harmful or potentially harmful circumstances could be probative of the risk of harm in the future under the analysis required by the statute. In this case, a history of drug abuse, failure to provide a drug test, limited contact with the child, and emotional instability supported findings that the parent could still be a danger, which adequately supported an order of supervision.

C-B-K Ranch LLC v. Glenna R. Thomas Trust

2023 UT App 110 (Sept. 21, 2023)

The district court denied...