State v Rigby

Rigby appealed the denial of his motion to suppress arguing Utah’s constitution provides greater protection under the automobile exception than the federal Constitution. The panel affirmed. The panel first reviewed the history of eh automobile exception in federal and state precedent, noted that the exception exists because cars are mobile and people have lessened expectations of privacy while using the highways  and noted federal precedent no longer requires a separate finding of exigent circumstances. The panel then held that the Utah court of Appeals has applied the current federal rule in many cases, that the most recent Utah Supreme Court cases construing the provisions in Utah Constitution Article I, Section 14 in the automobile context offered dueling plurality opinions on whether or not state and federal interpretations should diverge and the most recent majority opinion states that the Utah Supreme Court construes state and federal protections identically. Thus, the panel held Rigby failed to prove that a changed interpretation of Section 14 should be adopted and further that if a change is to be made, The Utah Supreme Court is the body that should make it. The panel thus held that currently there is no requirement under Section 14 for both probable cause and exigent circumstances before a search may be done.

CDC Restoration & Construction, LC v Tradesman Contractors, LLC

Tradesman appealed the verdict against it for misappropriating trade secrets arguing its directed verdict motion should have been granted, the jury instructions were erroneous and certain evidence was improperly admitted. The panel affirmed. It held the directed verdict motion was properly denied because competent evidence was offered that an agent of tradesman learned about CDC bid information when he went with an employee of CDC and worked with the employee to create CDCs bid and thus the bid information was not readily ascertainable by others and thus met the definition of trade secret and evidence was presented that Tradesman used the trade secret bid information to underbid CDC, the agent kept his relationship with Tradesman secret while working to create the CDC bid and the agent was in contact with Tradesman throughout the bid process. It held the jury instructions were correct because it sated the law accurately and the instruction about what information was not a trade secret was promised to the jury during trial alerting it to the issue during presentation of evidence. The panel finally held the non-trade secret pricing information was relevant to the trade secret issue and did not prejudice Tradesman and was thus properly admitted.

Bryner v custodian of Records

Bryner appealed the dismissal of his case for failure to appear at trial. The panel affirmed holding Bryner knew of the trial date, the witness he wanted to subpoena was present in the courtroom at the time trial should begin and the fact Bryner had an arrest warrant out against him did not excuse failure to appear as ordered.

State v Jenkins

Jenkins appealed the revocation of his probation. The panel affirmed holding any error was invited here by Jenkins’ attorney.