State v Mesia Maama

Maama appealed her convictions for assault and riot. The panel affirmed. It held that the trial judge’s intervention during cross examination of one of the victims was an improper comment and was unwarranted. However, this intervention did not require a mistrial as ether victim pulled the trigger on the gun was ultimately not particularly important in the context of the trial as a whole and in the context of Maama’s self-defense and was not emphasized in argument plus eh jury was aware that victim contradicted himself and the interjection was not likely to influence the jury. It held that as whole the jury instructions informed the jurors of their duty to base their decision on their memory of the testimony and the inclusion of possible commentary on the victim’s evidence did not create a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome. It held the self-defense instruction properly informed the jury that the state had the burden of disproving self-defense, informed the jury that Maama raised the defense as to herself by use of ender neutral language, limiting another defense to one male defendant and the whole tenor of the trial. It held that the evidence was sufficient to reject self-defense as the original confrontation had ended and there was thus no imminent threat.

State v Semisi Maama

Maama appealed his robbery, riot and assault convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no need for a coercion jury charge as Maama identified no threat which caused him to participate and in any vent the jury instructions properly charge the jury on the state’s obligation to disprove coercion beyond a reasonable doubt. It also held the challenge to a denied mistrial motion was unpreserved and a curative instruction cured any prejudice from a clash between judge and counsel over the judge’s intervention during cross examination of a victim

Capri Sunshine, LLC v E & C Fox Investments, LLC.

Capri sued Fox alleging that it overstated the balance due on notes and thus preventing Carpi form buying property at a public auction. The district court dismissed with prejudice. The panel affirmed. It held that Capri failed to allege that it tendered payment to cure defaults in the senior debt and thus failed to state any claim and further held that Capri failed to provide a factual basis for its claim of ownership in the land in question.

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

S.E. appealed the termination of her parental rights arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel, with one judge concurring, reversed. The majority held that counsel was ineffective as he made no opening statement, did not object to evidence, cross examine any witnesses, made no closing argument noting there was nothing to argue and undermined S.E.’s credibility during his examination. The majority held there was a reasonable possibility of a better outcome given S.E.’s efforts to communicate with the children and efforts to create a stable home for them in Iowa. The concurrence agreed there was ineffective assistance, but, argued the S.E.’s decision to leave the children to go to Iowa and noncompliance with reunifications efforts may have been enough to justify terminating her rights.

Collum v State

Collum appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief petition as untimely. The panel affirmed holding the petition was untimely as it was field more than a year after Collum’s conviction was final and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

State v Sanislo

Sanislo appealed his conviction for assault. The panel affirmed holding that, under the statutes in effect at the time, Cass A misdemeanor Assault was a lesser included offense of third class felony assault as the general definition which included serious bodily injury was part of the elements of both crimes.

State v Pham

Pham appealed his robbery, riot and assault convictions. The panel affirmed. It held the ground that Pham sought to argue about his motion to sever was never raised at trial or in the opening brief and was thus waived.

Wilcock v South Salt Lake City

Wilcock appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The panel affirmed holding the information sought about a state trooper was merely impeaching and thus not a basis for relief.

Haslam v Salt Lake City

Haslam appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The panel affirmed holding the information sought about a state trooper was merely impeaching and thus not a basis for relief.

In the Interests of E.C. and R.C. (R.R. v State)

R.R. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The apneal affirmed holding R.R. voluntarily surrendered her rights in open court and knew the children could be removed form her cousin’s care when she made the surrender of rights.