State v White

White appealed his convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court properly ordered the use of force under Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 to obtain a check swab for DNA testing as a prior version of the rule was held by the Utah Supreme Court to allow such orders to obtain blood samples, the text of the rule does not limit the issuance of such orders and White received more protection through the adversarial hearing than he would have received in a warrant application and thus the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches was provided here. It held challenges to the district court’s limitations on the cross examination of the victim were unpreserved as none of the arguments made on appeal were made before the district court. It held there was no error in limiting cross examination about victim’s refusal to give white’s lawyer his immigration application as it was reasonable for victim to not want defendant to know about his daughter who White said he had come for, the district court reviewed the application and found nothing relevant and in any event the examination would have been cumulative at most. It held there was no error in denying White’ s mistrial motion as the statements by victim that he felt accused were made in passing among the testimony of over 30 witnesses and evidence that white’s DNA was on a weapon used in the house during an altercation made the statements innocuous and harmless. It finally rejected White’s cumulative error arguments as none of the errors if corrected would undermine the jury’s conclusion White was in victim’s home and was there unlawfully.

State v Romero

Romero appealed his child sodomy conviction. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the prosecutors cross examination of Romero which delved into the details of his fraud conviction was reversible error as the questioning went beyond the limits set in precedent, the jury gave weight to the prior conviction as evidenced by its question about one of Romero’s answer and the error was not harmless as child’s testimony was inconsistent and thus the case was like a Utah Supreme Court case which reversed on similar facts.