Utah Law Developments
| Publication year | 2014 |
| Pages | 18 |
| Citation | Vol. 27 No. 4 Pg. 18 |
July, 2014
Appellate Highlights
Rodney R. Parker &Julianne P. Blanch
EDITOR'S NOTE The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, and Utah Court of Appeals
State v. Manatau 2014 UT 7, 322 P.3d 739 (March 7, 2014)
The Utah Supreme Court reversed a defendant's conviction for various charges on double jeopardy grounds because the legal necessity for a mistrial was not established on the record. During the first trial, the defendant's wife brought him a suit jacket that contained a pocket knife, and the trial court excluded her from trial as a result. After the jury was sworn, defense counsel requested that the defendant's wife be allowed to reenter the courtroom, to which the State objected. The trial court allowed the wife to return. After taking a recess, the judge explained that the knife incident "was affecting her more than she had previously thought," id. ¶ 5, and she declared a mistrial, despite objections from the State and the defense. At a second trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the case on double-jeopardy grounds, but the court rejected this claim, and he was convicted. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that after a mistrial a second trial may only proceed without violating the Utah Constitution if "(1) the defendant consents to the mistrial or (2) there is legal necessity' for the mistrial." Id. ¶ 10 (citation omitted) .Where the defendant does not consent, "legal necessity is established only if a mistrial is the 'only reasonable alternative to insure justice under the circumstances.'" A mistrial is considered the only reasonable alternative only if (1) upon a careful evaluation the trial judge considers alternatives to mistrial and concludes no alternative exists, and (2) the trial court establishes a factual record for its determination of legal necessity. Because the trial court did not consider alternatives to a mistrial and did not create a record to establish there was no reasonable alternative, the Utah Supreme Court could not decide whether the mistrial was legally necessary. Accordingly, the court held that the first trial served as an acquittal and the second trial violated double jeopardy.
State v. Nielsen 2014 UT 10 (April 29, 2014) (corrected April 30, 2014 and May 2, 2014)
In a significant departure from prior case law, the Utah Supreme Court explained that the marshaling requirement for challenging a factual finding is no longer grounds for a procedural default on appeal but is rather "a natural extension of an appellant's burden of persuasion." M. 11. The court emphasized the continuing importance of marshaling, explaining that a "party who fails to identify and deal with supportive evidence will never persuade an appellate court to reverse under the deferential standard of review that applies to such issues." Id. ¶ 40. However, the Court explained that appellants are not required to play '"devil's advocate'" and present '"every scrap of competent evidence' in a 'comprehensive and fastidious order.'" Id. ¶ 43 (citation omitted). Rather, appellants and the courts should focus "on the merits, not on some arguable deficiency in the appellant's duty of marshaling." Id. ¶ 42. On this basis, the court rejected the state's argument in a criminal appeal from charges of kidnapping that the defendant's failure to marshal in itself warranted a rejection of the appeal. Nonetheless, the court ruled that sufficient evidence was presented to convict the defendant, even though the state's evidence was entirely circumstantial.
State v. Gutierrez-Perez 2014 UT 11 (April 29, 2014)
The court affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to suppress, based on its determination that the language in Utah's eWarrant application system satisfies the Utah and U.S. constitutional requirements that a warrant be supported by an "oath or affirmation."
Dillon v. Southern Management Corporate Retirement Trust 2014 UT 12 (Originally filed May 2, 2014; Amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial