Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 3 No. 9 Pg. 19 |
| Pages | 19 |
| Publication year | 1990 |
Clark R. Nielsen, J.
PARENTAL SUPPORT AND EMANCIPATED CHILDREN
The common-law rule on emancipation of a minor by his or her conduct is applicable in an action by the state to recover child support expenses from the parents of the minor child. In determining whether a minor youth has become emancipated, the trial court must first determine for itself, "what factors are relevant to the determination" based on a review of cases from other states.
In an action by the state for reimbursement of support paid for the minor youth, the parent bears the burden of proof that the child is emancipated and that the parental obligation of support terminated. However, the court expressed no view whether the common-law child emancipation doctrine has been superceded by U.C.A. §§78-3a-49, 78-45-3, -4, and 4.3 (1987) regarding the statutory duties of parents to support their children—presumably because the issue was not adequately raised on appeal.
State v. C.R., 142 Utah Adv. Rep. 39, (Utah Ct. App. August 30, 1990) (J. Jackson).
HEARSAY EVIDENCE; U.R.E. 608(a)
A conviction of forcible sexual abuse was reversed because it was, in part, based upon hearsay testimony. Under U.C.A. 76-5-411, the trial court may admit expert testimony of the hearsay statement of a child under 10 years of age. Because the victim was not under 10 years of age but was an 18-year-old, mentally retarded adult, her hearsay statements were improperly admitted and defendant's counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the testimony.
The appellate court also held that the prosecution improperly bolstered the victim's account of her abuse by the testimony of a schoolteacher attesting to the victim's character. Although refusing to consider State v. Rimasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989) because the teacher was not considered an "expert, " the evidence of character was clearly improper under Utah Rule of Evidence 608(a). However, that error was considered harmless.
State v. Hallet, 140 U.A.R. 6 (Utah Ct. App., July 13, 1990) (J. Orme).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-SCREENING PANEL REVIEW
Dismissal of plaintiff's malpractice complain was reversed even though plaintiff's complaint had been filed before the pre-litigation screening panel review under U.C.A. §§78-14-4, 12 (1987). The dismissal of plaintiff's claim by the trial court resulted from the medical defendants' inaction by not properly raising the issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial