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

In Hernandez v. Baker, plaintiff Mark Hernandez obtained default judgments in the trial court against defendant Kelly Baker and Performance Auto & Marine Supply Corp. on claims including violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, replevin, conversion, and punitive damages. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to set aside the judgments under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals vacated the default judgments and remanded the case. The court held that the trial court failed to address whether Baker showed excusable neglect and timely filing, applied an incorrect standard for determining whether Baker had presented meritorious defenses such as statutory compliance and the corporate shield, and violated Performance Auto's due process rights by entering judgment on an amended complaint without first affording the corporation an opportunity to respond.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Lopez, the State appealed a district court's pretrial order dismissing an aggravated kidnapping charge against defendant Candelo Perez Lopez on the ground that it merged with a separate attempted murder charge. The appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case, holding that a trial court cannot rule on merger before trial. The core reasoning was that merger addresses double-jeopardy concerns that arise only after a jury has returned convictions on multiple charges; deciding the issue earlier would improperly remove a charging option from the jury and protect against a risk that does not yet exist. The court noted that defendants may raise merger arguments at various stages but that courts should resolve them only post-conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between subcontractor Gary Porter Construction and general contractor Fox Construction over payment for excavation and soil work on a University of Utah facility, including extra work outside the original subcontract; Porter later added a claim against surety National Surety Corporation on a required payment bond. The trial court granted summary judgment to Porter against Fox and to National against Porter on statute of limitations grounds, also awarding National attorney fees. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Porter against Fox, finding no material factual dispute, but reversed the ruling for National, holding that the trial court erred in concluding there was no identity of interest between Fox and National or that Porter's amended complaint adding the bond claim could not relate back under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The court remanded for further proceedings on the timeliness issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Craig Johnson sued the Utah Department of Transportation for negligence after suffering permanent injuries in a 1996 car accident on Interstate 15, where his vehicle hit deep cutouts in the pavement during road maintenance work performed by an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment to UDOT, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The appellate court held that UDOT could not delegate its nondelegable duty to maintain safe highways, retained sufficient control over the traffic control plan to be liable for the contractor's actions, and that the discretionary function exception to the Governmental Immunity Act did not shield UDOT from liability for the operational decisions and deviations at issue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved parents appealing a juvenile court's ruling that their infant son Z.D. had suffered a non-accidental femur fracture while in his father's care, based on medical evidence suggesting possible child abuse and triggering DCFS involvement. The Utah Court of Appeals reviewed extensive evidence from a multi-day trial, including medical examinations, witness testimonies about the injury's timing and mechanism, and the absence of external injuries like bruising or swelling. The court reversed the juvenile court's determination, holding that the evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard to establish that the fracture resulted from non-accidental trauma inflicted by the father on the specified day. Core reasoning focused on inconsistencies between the proposed injury mechanisms and the observed symptoms, along with unaddressed alternative explanations such as a prior walker incident.

family lawcriminal law

In State v. Smit, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to one count of criminal nonsupport, a third-degree felony. Under the plea agreement, the State promised to recommend a suspended sentence and probation with no jail time, but at sentencing the prosecutor initially recommended jail before withdrawing that recommendation after review of the plea hearing recording. The trial court imposed a suspended prison sentence, probation, and ninety days in jail as a probation condition, then denied the motion to withdraw the plea, finding the breach cured and that the defendant had been properly advised. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State cured any breach and that there was no plain error in the trial court's failure to specifically advise the defendant about possible jail time as a probation condition under rule 11. The court also rejected arguments that the presentence report recommendation bound the State or created good cause for withdrawal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Robert Pedockie, who was convicted of aggravated kidnapping after an incident in which he and a cousin allegedly forced his ex-girlfriend into a vehicle and drove her across Utah while making threats. On appeal, Pedockie argued that the State violated the speedy trial statute by failing to bring him to trial within 120 days and that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel when the trial court required him to represent himself after several appointed and retained attorneys withdrew. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate colloquy to ensure that any waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary under state precedent. The court noted multiple attorney changes and the trial court's inadequate warnings about the risks of self-representation, without addressing the speedy trial claim as dispositive.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Earl, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of clandestine laboratory precursors and equipment, a second-degree felony, claiming that police officers' warrantless entry into the rented home violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that all subsequently discovered evidence, including items in a backpack linked to him, should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion and upheld the conviction, holding that the defendant's lawful arrest for providing false information to the officer created an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint from the initial illegal entry. The core reasoning was that the arrest for this new offense permitted a valid search incident to arrest, and the evidence obtained was sufficiently independent of the prior constitutional violation to be admissible.

criminal law

The case involved the University of Utah Hospital seeking reimbursement from American Casualty Company, the personal professional liability insurer of one of its nurses, for a $1 million settlement paid to the family of a patient who died due to alleged excess IV fluids administered by the nurse. The district court granted summary judgment to American Casualty, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the policy only obligated American to defend or indemnify if a claim was made directly against the nurse, which never occurred as the suit targeted only the University, and that under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act the nurse could not be held personally liable so the University could not recover from the nurse's insurer via subrogation.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In Webb v. University of Utah, a student sued the university for negligence after he was injured during a required off-campus field trip when another student slipped on ice in a condominium complex and grabbed him for support, causing him to fall; the suit alleged the university acted negligently by directing students onto the slippery sidewalks as part of the course. The trial court granted the university's motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6), concluding no duty existed because there was no special relationship requiring the university to protect the student from icy conditions. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the claim was based on the university's affirmative negligent conduct in providing instruction during a curricular activity rather than a failure to protect, so no special relationship was required to establish a duty of care; the court distinguished the case from prior precedent involving non-curricular activities and noted that the distinction between action and omission determines whether the special relationship doctrine applies.

torts & liability

In this case, H.C. Massey challenged his termination as executive director of a non-profit organization by first suing the Board in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a due process violation, but the suit was dismissed because the Board was not a state actor. Massey then filed a state court action alleging breach of contract and wrongful termination based on the same events. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board on res judicata grounds, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that federal preclusion law applied to the prior federal judgment and that the state claims involved the same parties, a final judgment on the merits, and the same cause of action.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Defendant Stubbs's conviction for rape, where he claimed the sexual activity was consensual but sought a change of venue due to the alleged victim's prominent family in the small community of Beaver, Utah, raising concerns about jury impartiality. The trial court denied the motion for change of venue after beginning jury selection and without fully applying the relevant factors from State v. James. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the venue motion before trial and by not properly considering the James factors for potential prejudice, as many potential jurors had connections to the victim's family.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Davis County sought to recover damages to a police cruiser from Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company after an insured driver, Jensen, led officers on a high-speed chase and intentionally collided with a patrol car, causing it to crash. Jensen was convicted of aggravated assault and other crimes, and the County obtained a default judgment against him in a negligence suit but Progressive had denied coverage on the ground that the acts were intentional and thus excluded under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to Progressive, and the appeals court affirmed on the alternative ground that the County lacked standing to bring a direct action against the insurer. The court reasoned that the County was neither a party to the insurance contract nor subrogated to any rights, had no tort claim against Progressive, and could not use the default judgment to establish coverage or force payment. The decision turned on principles of standing and the limits on direct actions against insurers by injured third parties.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The Spencers, owners of two parcels in Pleasant View City, sued the City after it denied building permits and effectively revoked prior variances granted in the 1980s for development on rights-of-way, alleging violations of state and federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with a claim for attorney fees. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City and denied the Spencers' partial summary judgment motion, a ruling the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the Spencers failed to show any constitutional violation from the City's land-use decisions, that their claims for injunctive relief were moot after the City offered permits, and that they were not entitled to attorney fees under Buckhannon because there was no judicially sanctioned change in the City's conduct. The court also found several arguments inadequately briefed and declined to consider them.

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory