Appellate Highlights

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 30 No. 2 Pg. 25
• Pages: 25
• Publication year: 2017

Appellate Highlights Vol. 30 No. 2 Pg. 25 Utah Bar Journal April, 2017

March, 2017

Utah Law Developments

Rodney R. Parker, Dani N. Cepernich, Scott A. Elder, Nathanael J. Mitchell, and Adam M. Pace, J.

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.

In re E.K.S. 2016 UT 56 (Dec. 6, 2016)

In this privately-initiated parental termination proceeding, the mother had requested appointed counsel. The court held that Utah Code section 78A-6-1111(2), which prohibits the appointment of counsel in private proceedings, was not facially unconstitutional, but agreed that the district court erred by relying on the statute to deny the mother’s request for court-appointed counsel, rather than considering the mother’s due process rights as set forth in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27–32 (1981).

In re K.A.S. 2016 UT 55 (Dec. 6, 2016)

The court held that denial of counsel to the indigent father in this appeal from a parental-rights termination order violated the father’s federal due process rights. The father did not preserve the constitutional argument for appeal, but the court found that the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule applied in the narrow circumstances of this case.

Bennett v. Bigelow 2016 UT 54 (Nov. 25, 2016)

The Utah Supreme Court analyzed whether a parolee could assert a Fifth Amendment challenge to the revocation of his parole based upon his participation in a sex offender treatment program that required the disclosure of past charged or uncharged sex offenses. Reversing the district court, the supreme court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the state on the Fifth Amendment claim. Among other things, the supreme court recognized that “a threat to revoke a defendant’s parole constitutes compulsion for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.” Id. ¶ 41.

In re Estate of Willey 2016 UT 53 (Nov. 22, 2016)

In an appeal from a denial of a motion seeking relief from court order under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b), the Utah Supreme Court held that Rule 60(b) motions must be filed under their appropriate headings. Specifically, Rule 60(b)(6) is not a catch-all when the grounds for setting aside the judgment are covered under 60(b)(1)–(5). The court affirmed the denial of the motion.

Met v. State 2016 UT 51 (Nov. 21, 2016)

The court affirmed the defendants’ felony convictions for child kidnapping and aggravated murder. Among other things, the court abandoned the factors test described in prior case law and held that Utah Rule of Evidence 403’s balancing test is the standard that a district court should employ to assess the admissibility of allegedly gruesome photographs.

Nielsen v. State 2016 UT 52 (Nov. 18, 2016)

The Utah...