James Z. Davis

This case involves Bruce Petersen appealing the denial of his second motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside a default judgment that forfeited his interest in real property at 736 North Colorado Street in Salt Lake City. The property was subject to state forfeiture proceedings under Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-13 after Petersen’s federal drug convictions for offenses linked to activities on the property. The State served the forfeiture complaint and notice by certified mail, which Petersen did not accept, leading to the default judgment; Petersen argued that personal service under Rule 4 was required and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that Petersen waived his claim of insufficient service of the complaint by failing to raise it in his first 60(b) motion, as required by procedural rules analogous to those governing personal jurisdiction and capacity defenses. The court reviewed the issue for correctness and rejected related due process arguments as unpreserved.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Martinez, the defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated burglary and murder arising from a 1999 home invasion in which two armed men entered a residence, struggled with and shot the victim Matthew Moya, and fled in a green Cadillac getaway car. The court affirmed the convictions after reviewing challenges to the reliability of an eyewitness identification of Martinez as the driver, the denial of a mistrial motion, and the sufficiency of the evidence. It held that the photo-spread identification procedure was not unduly suggestive and met constitutional reliability standards under State v. Ramirez and related precedents, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the mistrial, and that the evidence, including the predicate aggravated burglary leading to the death, was sufficient to support both convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Parra, the defendant appealed convictions for three counts of aggravated assault, carrying a concealed dangerous weapon used in a crime of violence, and criminal mischief arising from a drive-by shooting on Interstate 15 in which shots were fired at the victims' vehicle from the defendant's car. The court affirmed all convictions, ruling that the warrantless search of the vehicle was lawful because exigent circumstances existed due to the car's mobility, the occupants' awareness of police, and safety risks from discovered ammunition combined with the reported shooting. It also held that the victim's on-scene identification was reliable and did not violate due process, and that the trial court correctly denied lesser-included-offense instructions because the evidence provided no rational basis for convictions on those lesser charges.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Cathleen Rackley suing her former employer Fairview Care Centers for wrongful termination after she informed a nursing home resident about an incoming check, contrary to the resident's family's wishes. The trial court ruled in Rackley's favor, finding the termination violated a public policy requiring residents to be informed of personal funds. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no clear and substantial public policy existed under state or federal law that would protect such conduct in an at-will employment context. The court reasoned that while at-will employment can be overcome by public policy exceptions, the specific policy alleged here—immediate notification of funds—was too narrow and not supported by the cited constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved defendant Kenneth Ellis appealing his conviction for theft from a person, a second-degree felony. Ellis and his co-defendant Tommy Carter were both convicted after the trial court denied a motion to continue the trial to investigate newly discovered evidence. In a prior appeal by Carter, the court had reversed the conviction, finding the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced the defendant. Applying the law of the case doctrine, the court here concluded it was bound by that prior decision on the identical issue and therefore reversed and remanded Ellis's conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a quiet title action over property originally held by Ms. Julian and her brother as joint tenants. In 1969, Ms. Julian executed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest to her brother, but the deed was later altered without her consent to add his wife as an additional grantee before being recorded; the brother later attempted to affirm the wife's interest via affidavit after her death and then reconveyed the property to himself and Ms. Julian as joint tenants. The trial court granted summary judgment to Ms. Julian, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the post-delivery alteration did not void the original deed or divest the brother's vested title, but that the alteration and affidavit failed to convey any interest to the wife because the deed was not properly executed or delivered by the brother as grantor and the affidavit was recorded after her death, rendering it void. As a result, full title vested in Ms. Julian upon the brother's death. The court reviewed the matter de novo under summary judgment standards and could affirm on alternative grounds.

property

The case involved Raymond Rick Lyman, a co-owner of a fitness center, who was convicted of felony theft after surveillance equipment set up by police in a maintenance closet was stolen; the equipment had been installed to investigate a possible peeping hole into the tanning room. The court affirmed the conviction for theft based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's presence, access to the area, inconsistent statements to police, and the timing of the equipment's disappearance. However, it vacated the third-degree felony conviction because the prosecution failed to present evidence establishing that the stolen property's value met or exceeded the $1,000 threshold required under Utah law, and remanded for further proceedings. The court rejected arguments about alternative hypotheses and jury instructions on reasonable doubt, finding the trial court's approach adequate.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Garcia, the defendant appealed his DUI conviction after the trial court denied his motion to suppress breath alcohol test results, arguing that the State could not rely on a statutory presumption of validity because calibration records for the Intoxilyzer were not maintained in compliance with Utah Administrative Code Rule 714-500. The court reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that the presumption under Utah Code section 41-6-44.3 was unavailable. The core reasoning was that the rule required reference sample test results to be recorded to three decimal places in a permanent record book, and recording them only as "OK" failed to meet this specific requirement, preventing the State from establishing the necessary foundation for admissibility of the test results.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Arellano, the defendant, an inmate at the Utah State Prison, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance within a correctional facility after a correctional officer observed him handling an envelope later found to contain cocaine. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the prosecution violated Utah Code Ann. § 77-17-13 by failing to provide timely notice of its intent to call the state crime lab chemist as an expert witness, including her qualifications and report, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance to prepare for that testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the State of Utah's petition to terminate C.Y.'s parental rights to her four children based on a history of neglect, mental health problems, unstable housing, failure to complete treatment plans, and repeated removals of the children by DCFS. The trial court terminated the parental rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that order. The appellate court held that a psychological evaluation was properly admitted even though performed by a supervised resident rather than a licensed psychologist, because licensing rules applied only to custody evaluations and the witness qualified as an expert based on education and experience. It also ruled that caseworker testimony about out-of-court statements was not hearsay when offered to show the caseworker's actions and the services provided, so no due process violation occurred from lack of cross-examination of the original declarants.

family law

This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court order awarding legal custody and guardianship of his two daughters to their maternal aunt and uncle after the mother's suicide. The juvenile court had found by clear and convincing evidence that the father had abused and neglected the girls, based on a history of domestic violence and the children's resulting emotional trauma, and placed them with the relatives following petitions alleging neglect and dependency. The father argued that the court erred by not applying the parental presumption in his favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding that the parental presumption does not apply in proceedings on a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency of a child, as the statutory scheme treats such findings as incompatible with presuming parental custody serves the child's best interests.

family law

The case involved defendant Robert W. Stringham, who was employed by Assessment and Psychotherapy Associates and received payments partly through a consulting entity, which he did not fully report on annual income statements submitted to his U.S. Steel pension fund between 1990 and 1992. This underreporting allegedly allowed him to obtain $13,475 in supplemental pension benefits to which he was not entitled, resulting in convictions for one count of engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, three counts of communications fraud, and twelve counts of theft. The court reversed the three communications fraud convictions and remanded for a new trial, while affirming all other convictions. The reversal rested on the determination that the jury instructions failed to properly require the State to prove that any false representations or omissions were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, as mandated by the communications fraud statute. The court found no reversible error in the handling of the remaining charges or in other evidentiary and instructional matters.

criminal law

The case concerned a dispute over the priority of liens on real property in Utah County: Lindsay held a preexisting judgment lien against Christensen, while Capital Assets held a trust deed on the same property securing a loan to Christensen. Lott had conveyed the property to Christensen by quitclaim deed (with no consideration and for the limited purpose of allowing him to obtain financing) and Christensen later reconveyed it to Lott, after which Capital Assets sued to establish its trust deed's priority over Lindsay's and other creditors' liens. The trial court granted summary judgment to Capital Assets. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the quitclaim deed conveyed fee simple title under Utah statutes because it contained no express reservation, that this interest was sufficient for Lindsay's judgment lien to attach upon conveyance, and that the lien was superior to Capital Assets' interest as a matter of law without regard to the parties' subjective intent or equitable considerations.

propertyprocedure

This case involved David Cade's dispute with Zions First National Bank over the termination of his employment contract for purchasing and selling SBA loans, specifically whether Cade was bound to arbitrate his claims under a Form U-4 securities registration agreement he signed listing a sister brokerage firm as his registrant. The district court compelled arbitration based on the Form U-4, confirmed the resulting arbitration award in Cade's favor, and denied his motion to disqualify the bank's counsel. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the arbitration orders and remanded for trial, reasoning that the Bank was not a party to the Form U-4, had no qualifying corporate or other relationship allowing it to enforce the arbitration provision, and thus no agreement to arbitrate existed between Cade and the Bank. The court affirmed the denial of disqualification, finding no abuse of discretion because any challenged communications occurred after the arbitration award and the order permitted renewal if needed.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over a 1993 real estate purchase contract in which PDQ Lube Center offered to buy Huber's Logan, Utah property for $125,000, subject to financing, environmental clearances for underground storage tanks, and other contingencies. The trial court ruled that Huber breached the agreement by failing to remove the tanks in good faith, which excused PDQ from certain obligations, but later terminated the deal after determining that PDQ had not made timely and proper tender of the required payment to the title company following the initial judgment. On consolidated appeals, the court affirmed both rulings, holding that Huber's lack of good faith performance was supported by the evidence while PDQ's post-judgment tender was ineffective because funds were not available for immediate distribution. The core reasoning relied on contract terms requiring good-faith performance, Utah rules on tender of payment, and the principle that a party must be ready and able to perform to enforce specific performance.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the State's petition for an extraordinary writ challenging a magistrate's refusal to bind over defendant Glenn Earl Lloyd II for trial on ten counts of money laundering and one count of pattern of unlawful activity, which arose from a fraudulent securities investment scheme in which the defendant solicited funds from Utah physicians for nonexistent businesses and deposited the checks into accounts he solely controlled. The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning focused on whether the evidence established probable cause for the charged offenses, including analysis of the statutory requirements for money laundering transactions and the existence of an 'enterprise' under the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act, as well as the defendant's sole operation of the scheme without a separate organizational structure.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ramirez, the defendant appealed the sentencing judge's imposition of an enhanced six-year minimum mandatory prison term after his conviction for arranging to distribute a controlled substance, based on the judge's finding that the offense was committed in concert with two or more persons under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.1. The defendant contended that the statute violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by allowing the sentencing judge, rather than the jury, to determine the factual basis for the enhancement. On remand from a prior appeal, the sentencing judge made written findings that the defendant acted with two other individuals and again imposed the enhanced penalty. The court affirmed, concluding that the statute's assignment of the enhancement determination to the judge does not violate the Sixth Amendment.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Caree F. McDonald appealing her conviction for exceeding the speed limit by eleven miles per hour based on photo radar evidence under Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-46. The prosecution amended the charge from a class C misdemeanor to an infraction before trial, and the court denied McDonald's requests for a jury trial and continuance, proceeding to a bench trial where she was convicted and fined sixty dollars plus traffic school. McDonald argued that the amendment violated Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 4(d) by depriving her of a statutory right to a jury trial, that the city lacked authority to reclassify the offense, and that the statute excluding jury trials for infractions was unconstitutional. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the amendment charged the same offense without prejudicing substantial rights, that the pretrial agreement to forgo jail time eliminated any right to a jury trial under state law, and that the relevant statute was consistent with the Utah Constitution. The decision rested on the principle that the right to a jury trial depends on the potential punishment, which here involved no possibility of imprisonment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hall, defendant Robin Hall was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on evidence that he touched a seven-year-old victim inappropriately while babysitting her in 1995. On appeal, Hall challenged the admission of the child's hearsay statements without the findings required by Utah Code section 76-5-411, the admission of evidence about the child's religious beliefs under Rule 610, the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the sufficiency of the evidence on intent. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that Hall's defense had strategically used the hearsay statements so the court would not review that claim, that any Rule 610 error was not obvious, that counsel's performance was not deficient or did not prejudice the outcome, and that the evidence allowed the jury to infer the required sexual intent. The court therefore upheld the first-degree felony conviction.

criminal law

The case involved Louis Ortiz, a construction worker, who was injured when a concrete chute on a truck operated by Geneva Rock Products employees swung without warning and struck him during a sidewalk pouring job. Ortiz sued Geneva Rock for negligence, claiming the company's employees failed to properly maintain or warn about the malfunctioning chute. The jury returned a verdict finding no negligence by Geneva Rock, resulting in dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court reversed the verdict and remanded for a new trial, holding that the evidence clearly preponderated in favor of finding at least some negligence by Geneva Rock, as its employees attempted to repair the chute while ignoring the work area and without providing any warning.

torts & liability