State v Bravo

The district court refused to allow testimony as to the rough sex Bravo and victim participated in during and after their marriage at Bravo’s trial for rape and sodomy. Bravo was convicted. The panela affirmed. It held that under Utah Supreme Court precedent decided after Bravo’s trial, evidence of past sexual acts between defendant and victim are either relevant or not and the district court erred by ruling on the strength of relevance instead of the bare fact of relevance. However, the panel affirmed holding Bravo failed to provide sufficient details about the rough sex to allow the district court to properly analyze its prejudicial effect. Thus, the decision to exclude the testimony was affirmed.

State v Wellington

Wellington had his probation revoked for criminal acts done before his probation was extended at a probation revocation hearing. The panel affirmed holding that, while there are concerns about revoking for acts known at the time of the first hearing, Wellington suffered no prejudice as he had only one probationary sentence and violated the terms by receiving stolen goods.

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

M.C. and C.C. appealed several juvenile court orders. The panel dismissed in part holding M.C. and C.C. filed their appeal of certain orders after the 50 day deadline. It affirmed the denial of Rule 52 and 59 motions holding those motions raised no new issues and thus were properly denied and in any event, the issues arising from a failure in the recording system were known at the time of M.C. and C.C.’s first appeal which they dismissed and thus waived review.

In the Interests of P.G. (P.G. v State)

P.G. appealed the denial of his motion to suppress his statement to police and his adjudication as delinquent. The panela affirmed. It held the motion to suppress was properly denied as P.G. was nearly 18 when he was interviewed the interview was only 40 minutes long, the officer was aggressive but did not coerce P.G. The panel held there was no confrontation clause violation in having the victim testify in a separate room as P.G. failed to object and the victim gave testimony favorable to him. The panel affirmed the adjudication as P.G. confessed to the acts and the victim gave numerous out of court statements that the abusive acts occurred.

Velez v Robert J. DeBry & Associates, P.C.

Velez attempted to add a statutory wage penalty when DeBry filed a motion to confirm an arbitration award in Velez favor. The district court ruled that Velez could have raised the issue in arbitration and didn’t and was thus barred from raising the issue at confirmation. The panel affirmed. It held that Utah Code 34-28-5 did not bar resolution of wage claim penalties in arbitration and if it did that would violate the Federal Arbitration Act. Thus, Velez is barred for raising the issue now under claim preclusion.

State v Shook

The panel determined the appeal was wholly frivolous and dismissed.

Kuhn v Retirement Board

Kuhn challenged the denial of coverage for her emergency removal of a lap band. The panel affirmed holding that under both the plain language of the state’s master policy and Court of Appeals precedent, the removal was a complication of the surgery to insert the band because it occurred as a consequence of the initial surgery.