State v Reigelsperger

Reigelsperger appealed his aggravated kidnapping and sex offense convictions. The panel affirmed. It held that Reigelperger’s motion to suppress his statements to police was properly dined as he was not in custody when he was interviewed because he was an involuntary inpatient at a mental hospital, was brought to a waiting room by hospital staff who remained and had control over him, the questions focused on him as a suspect, he was not told the detectives had a warrant for his arrest, he was eager to tell his side of the story and there was no indication the detectives would decide when to end the interview. It held that Reigelsperger’s plain error argument that the jury instructions on the sex offenses improperly allowed conviction on facts or theories not presented at preliminary hearing failed as he did not provide any case law or other authority in support of it. It rejected his plain error argument that the sex offense jury instructions failed to require a culpable mens rea as to consent because any error was harmless given Reigelsperger’s own testimony that his wife said she wanted to leave and that she did not want to hug or kiss him and he persisted in seeking sexual contact despite those statements which is at least criminally reckless. It finally rejected Reigelsperger’s plain error argument that the intent instructions on aggravated kidnapping were erroneous as it as unsupported by case law or other citations and Utah case law has affirmed convictions under very similar intent instructions.

State v Navarro

Navarro appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held that the officers involved here had reasonable suspicion that Navarro’s SUV had illegally tinted windows and reasonable suspicion of weapons violations based on the observations of an officer on surveillance duty and that officer’s memory that Navarro was a felon; the 27 minute stop was reasonable given the officers knowledge of Navarro’s threat to shoot it out, the presence of another vehicle at the scene which divided eth officer’s attention and the need to be careful due to the weapons violation suspicion; and the drug dog alert here came while the officers were waiting for a tint meter and thus did not extend the stop beyond reasonable limits.

State v Watring

Watring appealed his sentences arguing they were imposed concurrently and later made consecutive in violation of law. The Panel affirmed holding the sentencing judge failed to make the sentences for two sets of crimes consecutive or concurrent at the first hearing, reserved judgment at the second hearing until after the presentence report and the notation in the minutes that the sentences were to run concurrent after eth second hearing was a clerical error as it inaccurately recorded what was done, the judge was unaware of the error and Watring failed to argue the error at the final sentencing hearing.