Koerber v Mismash

Koerber sued Mismash under Utah’s Fit Premises Act and Mismash brought suit under the unlawful detainer statute. The district court granted summary judgment to Mismash and denied Koerber’s motions to reconsider. The panel affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded. It held that summary judgment was appropriate as the district court permissibly found Koerber was served the motion and memorandum by email as directed, in any event Koerber had actual notice of the motion and failed to raise any genuine factual dispute through a memorandum and, by failing to include a transcript of the oral argument on the motion, deprived the panel of the ability to review any claim there was a genuine dispute based on facts alleged at oral argument. The panel vacated the judgment to the extent it granted relief under the detainer statute as the summons was deficient in that it had typewritten the time to respond instead of handwritten the time to respond and failure to strictly comply with the statute is fatal. The panel held that Koerber’s due process arguments were meritless as there was no authority to undo everything and go back in time as requested and Koerber had a fair opportunity to present his arguments. Finally, the panel held that there was no error in denying the reconsideration motions as relief was discretionary and the district court addressed all of the Koerber’s arguments even though it did not believe the motions were properly before it.

State v Kennedy

Kennedy appealed her conviction for obstruction of justice. The panel affirmed. It held the jury instructions as a whole informed the jury 1.that it must find Kennedy had the intent to obstruct justice and could not have informed the jury that knowing or reckless acts were sufficient and 2. required the state to prove she knew or should have known one of three specific crimes had been committed which essentially stated her mistake of fact defense. It also held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction including Kennedy’s proximity to the shooting, her seeing a struggle and flashes in the car where the shooting occurred, her exclamations at the scene and the statements by the shooters as they got in her SUV.

State v Walker

Walker moved to allow certain violent acts committed by the alleged victim in his assault case. The district court granted his motion in part and Walker appeal. The panel vacated and remanded. It held that Utah Code 76-2-402(5) does not create an exception to the Utah rules of evidence nor grant defendants a right to introduce any evidence relating to a victim’s violent acts. Instead, it creates a list of factors a jury may consider. The panel noted this outcome is consistent with both the the statute’s plain language and legislative history. It remanded for the motion to be evaluated under the rules of evidence.

Magallanes v South Salt Lake City

Magallanes appealed the denial of her petition for postconviction relief. The panel affirmed holding the evidence she offered about the disgraced state trooper who arrested her was merely impeaching and impeachment evidence is not a basis to grant relief.

Branch v State

Branch appealed the dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief as untimely. The panel affirmed holding that Branch provided no justification for waiting more than seven years after the deadline passed to file and that any claims of actual innocence must be field under a separate statute.

In the Interest of D.L., D.L. and D.L. (T.C. v State)

T.C. appealed the permanent placement of her sons with nonrelative guardians. The panel affirmed. It first held that the placement order was intended to be permanent and was thus appealable. It held the order was supported by the record which showed T.C. had received all the services she could receive, still had no housing for the boys, contacted a boyfriend despite a no contact order and drank alcohol while in treatment and the boys were comfortable in their nonrelative setting and needed stability.

Salt Lake City v San Juan

San Juan appealed his DUI conviction arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel affirmed. It held there was no prejudice form failing to request notice of expert witness as counsel request notice of all witnesses, objecting to the arresting officers conclusion of impairment would not have changed the outcome, san Juan failed to identify any expert who could have testified he wasn’t impaired and counsel did not stipulate to identify at trial instead vigorously disputed identity at trial.

Mike’s Smoke, Cigar & Gifts v St. George City

City revoked mike’s business license based on its determination that Mike’s sold an analogue controlled substance. The district court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing with experts being put under oath and cross examined. The panel reversed and remanded. It held the order was a final order because the order decided all the district court could and left nothing pending before it. It also held that eth district court used the wrong standard to decide the case, held the correct standing is whether a reasonable mind could have decided like the City did and remanded for consideration of the matter under eh correct standard.