State v Lintzen

Lintzen appealed his child sex abuse conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The panel affirmed. It held the district court did not error in granting the state’s motion in liminie to allow the victim to testify about other acts of abuse as propensity evidence is allowed in molestation cases, the acts were roughly similar in nature, involved one victim over a short period of time and the district court properly evaluated all the factors and made a reasoned decision. The panel affirmed the denial of the new trial motion as Lintzen forfeited his challenge to victim’s testimony which differed form statements made to police, his newly discovered witness was barred from entering the country due to numerous theft convictions, had significant credibility issues as a result and the district court’s concern that the witness would not comply with the oath to tell the truth while sitting in Peru was reasonable and the report Lintzen wanted admitted was both hearsay and cumulative.

Zundel v Magana

Zundel and other cart owners sued Magana and several towing companies alleging violations of Utah consumer protection and debt collection statutes. The district court granted summary judgment without a hearing to defendants and denied defendants’ motion for attorney fees. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held there was a question of material fact about whether Zundel and the others should have known they would be towed based on the signage at the parking lot and the district court erred in not resolving this issue and further erred by not holing the required hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment. The case was remanded for the hearing. The denial of attorney fees was affirmed as there was evidence to support the district court’s determination that Zundel made his arguments at the summary judgment stage in good faith.

In the interests of B.O. (M.C. and C.C. v State)

M.C. and C.C. sought to appeal several orders of the juvenile court. The panel held that two appeals were time barred as the notice was filed after the deadline. As to the one order which was timely appealed, the panel affirmed holding the issues raised in the underlying motion had already been adjudicated in the case and thus the motion was properly denied.

State v Velarde

Velarde appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The panela affirmed holding the testimony at the preliminary hearing and Velarde’s own admissions that he arranged to sell drugs and then showed up at the appointed place with the drugs provided adequate support for the guilty plea.

State v Salt.

Salt appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and the denial of his motions to arrest judgment and reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. The panel affirmed. It held that the jury instructions were correct statements of the law as third degree aggravated assault is not a specific intent crime. The panel affirmed the denial of the motion to reduce the conviction to misdemeanor as the elements of the felony and misdemeanor are not the same, the assault statutes are not unconstitutionally vague and Salt’s inability to keep his job did not require the reduction. The panel held the conviction for aggravated assault was supported by evidence that Salt used a pipe and pottery to open a large gash on victim’s forehead and the jury’s decision to acquit Salt on other charges does not alter the result. The panel rejected Salts over breadth challenge to the cohabitant abuse act noting the act does not regulate who can live together but protects people from violence at the hands of people they live or used to live with and violence and threats are not protected in this context. The panel finally rejected an ineffective assistance challenge noting the trial attorney actually made the argument Salt argues he was prohibited from making.

Aghdasi v Saberin

Aghdasi appealed the denial of their Rule 60 motion arguing excusable neglect by their attorney who did not respond to a summary judgment motion. The panel affirmed holding failure to check a spam folder or otherwise losing or misplacing and electronic notice is not excusable neglect just as losing paper notices is not excusable neglect.

 L.G. v A.J

L.G. appealed the order dismissing her private petition to terminate A.J’s parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that once the juvenile court determined there were no grounds to terminate A.J.’s rights, the case had to be dismissed, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on L.G.’s claims for money damages under a temporary order and there was no basis to award L.G. attorney fees for A.J.’s criminal contempt citation.