State v Garcia

Garcia appealed his attempted murder and gun possession convictions. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held that one of the jury instructions on attempted manslaughter misstated the law by requiring imperfect self-defense to be disproven and there were other instructions on imperfect self-defense which correctly stated the law and the conflict between the instructions meant the jury was not properly charged on the issue. The apneal held it was ineffective assistance of counsel to propose the incorrect instruction as there was no tactical reason to do so and wrong charges on elements are harmful and that is the case here as there is a reasonable possibility the jury could have acquitted Garcia of attempted murder and convicted him of attempted manslaughter instead. The panel held the evidence was sufficient to sustain the gun possession conviction as he spontaneously told the investigating officer that he uses cocaine and the balance of the statement was reliable as he admitted shooting at victim and thus the cocaine use portion was sufficiently corroborated and a directed verdict motion would have failed. It also held the gun possession statute was not unconstitutionally vague as Garcia’s own statements provided a basis to believe he used cocaine during the time of the shooting meeting the narrowest definition argued by Garcia on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the attempted murder charge.

Electrical Contractors, Inc. v Westwater Farms, LLC

Westwater appealed summary judgment in favor of Contractors. The panel affirmed. It held that the complaint adequately alleged an enforceable oral contract as it identified the services to be performed (general contracting and electrical contracting) and identified the cost-plus formula to calculate the amount due for the services. It held that Westwater failed to identify any disputed facts in its opposition and further that the parole evidence rule did not apply on these facts. It also held there was no abuse of discretion in denying Westwater’s motion to supplement its opposition as the proffered reason, hospitalization of a key witness, did not actually occur until after the opposition was filed and there was thus no basis to believe an adequate opposition could have been filed here.

Sleepy Holdings, LLC v Mountain West Title

Sleepy appealed the dismissal of its damages disclosures as untimely and entry of summary judgment for Mountain. The panel affirmed. It held the initial discourse of damages were inadequate as it failed to identify the loss of market value between the contracted sale and the forfeiture and later attempted supplements were significantly late under eth scheduling order. The panel held the discovery sanctions under Rule of Civil Procedure 26 applied as discourses of damages are controlled by that rule and not by Rule 16. It upheld the sanction of barring damages evidence as it was not clear Mountain would have learned anything at depositions given Sleepy’s position its complaint p[provided all the needed information about damages and Utah precedent allows the sanction of striking disclosures for lateness.

Schrieb v Whitmer

Schrieb appealed the jury verdict in favor of Whitmore in her car crash case. The panel affirmed. It held evidence of Schrieb’s prior medical history and accidents was relevant to the issue of causation in this case and the district court’s denial of Schrieb’s motion in liminie did not make the evidence admissible. It further held the Utah case relied upon by Schrieb deals with apportionment instructions to the jury not relevance and admissibility of prior medical history and thus did not apply at all here. It held photographs of the cars after the collision were relevant in supporting Whitmer’s argument the low impact nature of the collision did not cause the harm here and in any event there was other testimony about eh low impact nature form Schrieb and her treating chiropractors testified about how low impact events can cause significant harms. Thus there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the photographs into evidence. The panel finally held the Schrieb failed to marshal the evidence in favor of the jury verdict in her sufficiency argument and her prior accidents, seeking treatment for similar injuries before the accident and her refusal of treatment right after the accident provided a sufficient basis fort the verdict in favor of Whitmer.