Judith M. Billings

In State v. Cornejo, the State charged defendant Oscar Ivan Cornejo with DUI and related traffic offenses after his arrest. On the first day of the scheduled trial, the court conducted an immediate evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of a blood sample taken from the defendant, for which the State was unprepared because it had not subpoenaed a key witness; the court denied the State's request for a continuance and dismissed all charges with prejudice on speedy trial grounds. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and that dismissal with prejudice was improper because the overall delay did not violate the defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights under the Barker v. Wingo balancing test. The appellate court noted that much of the delay was attributable to the defendant or neutral causes and that the State had not caused unconstitutional prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case Pratt v. Nelson arose from a defamation, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy lawsuit filed by Nevin and Denise Pratt after defendants held a press conference about an earlier tort suit against over 200 alleged members of a polygamous group known as the Order, including the Pratts. The trial court converted defendants' motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The court held that the judicial proceeding privilege absolutely barred defamation claims based on allegations in the underlying complaint, while the press statements were not actionable under the group defamation doctrine because they referred only to broad groups such as 'the Kingston Polygamist Family' or 'leaders of the Kingston organization' without naming the Pratts. The ruling rested on the defendants' unrefuted affidavit describing the press conference and the Pratts' failure to present contrary evidence or timely address the privilege issue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Lopez, the State appealed a trial court's order that sua sponte withdrew the defendant's guilty pleas to two counts of forgery after the defendant had been sentenced but before a written judgment was entered. The defendant, who primarily spoke Spanish, had entered the pleas as part of an agreement involving charges related to using false documents for a home loan, and the trial court expressed concerns that he may not have fully understood the plea statement or its immigration consequences because it was provided in English. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under statute and rule to reconsider and withdraw the pleas before final judgment and that it did not abuse its discretion given doubts about the defendant's comprehension of the rights being waived.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Larry McCloud's appeal of his convictions on one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and three counts of sodomy on a child, stemming from allegations by his daughter of sexual abuse during her childhood. The court affirmed the sodomy convictions but determined that the statute of limitations barred the aggravated sexual abuse charge as originally applied, directing that it be reduced to sexual abuse of a child. The court rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, inadequate voir dire, erroneous mistrial denial, and flawed reasonable doubt instructions, finding no plain error, ineffective assistance, or abuse of discretion in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by H.O. from a Utah juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to three children, raising issues of choice of law, statutes of limitations, sufficiency of evidence, and whether reunification services were required. The Court of Appeals held that Utah law properly applied under the "most significant relationship" test because the state had jurisdiction and the children were located there with all relevant information accessible, and that the proceedings were timely even under a four-year limitations period. The court further determined that the father failed to marshal evidence showing the termination findings were clearly erroneous and that reunification services were not mandated given the circumstances and limited parental interest in such services. The order terminating parental rights was affirmed.

family lawprocedure

The Cannons sued Salt Lake Regional Medical Center for negligent medical care after Gary Cannon fell in his hospital room, suffered a subdural hematoma, and died, seeking production of any incident or unusual occurrence reports related to his treatment. The hospital refused, asserting that the reports were protected from discovery by the statutory care review privilege in Utah Code sections 26-25-1 and 26-25-3. The trial court denied the Cannons' motion to compel based solely on an affidavit from the hospital's risk manager. On interlocutory appeal, the court reversed and remanded, ruling that the affidavit alone did not establish the privilege's applicability, that discovery statutes should be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, and that the trial court should have conducted an in camera review or required a stronger showing before denying access to the documents.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare