State v Kirby

Kirby appealed his kidnapping, assault and witness tampering convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel to move for directed verdicts as there was sufficient evidence to prove each conviction namely victim testimony that he beat her and refused to allow her to leave including ordering her to move from the door of the hotel room and unpacking her suitcase later in the ordeal and beating her again; the victim’s account was not inherently improbable and the beatings resulted in broken bones and bruising plus strangulation marks on victim’s neck; and Kirby stated he would not let victim go because he feared victim would go to the police and he would go to prison. It held that there was no error denying Kirby’s motion for a continuance as the witness he wanted to call could only supply hearsay from victim which she was cross examined about and thus the testimony was inadmissible.

Z Corp. v, Inc.

Z Corp. appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract case against The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that under the plain language of the contract, Ancestry had no obligation to market membership in Z Corp. and could end marketing at any time and thus ending marketing could not breach the contract. It held that Z Corp. did state a claim as to membership fees actually collected and not remitted to Z Corp. as remitting 40% of fees generated was a duty under the contract and thus remanded this claim for further proceedings.

In the Interests of S.A. (S.A. v State)

Father appealed the protective supervision order that he undergo domestic violence evaluation and follow the recommendations. The panela affirmed holding that, because father did not appeal the finding that child was dependent, Utah Code 78A-6-117(2) authorized the juvenile court here to impose the condition as there was evidence father and mother hit each other in child’s presence and evaluation was proportionate and in child’s best interest.