State v Peraza

Peraza appealed his child sodomy convictions. The panel vacated and remanded. It held the district court erred in admitting expert testimony on child victim recanting of accusations as the state’s notice under Utah code 77-77-13 which failed to include an expert report or any description of the evidence to be given and the scientific basis for the expert’s testimony was thus inadequate to allow the district court to evaluate the proposed testimony under Rule of Evidence 702. It held the error was prejudicial as the expert’s testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony and that testimony was the sole evidence supporting conviction. It held the district court also erred in not grating a continuance to allow the defense to prepare to cross examine expert as defense counsel diligently prepared for trial, adequate preparation was likely to occur during a continuance, fair trial considerations supported a continuance and the state failed to prove lack of prejudice.

Boyle v Clyde Snow & Sessions PC

On remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the panel affirmed the attorney fee award to Clyde on the ground that Boyle failed to support his arguments with citations to the record and legal authorities. The case was remanded to dismiss Boyle’s claim for attorney fees and to distribute interpled funds.

State v Lantz

Lantz appealed his drug convictions arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel affirmed holding Lantz inadequately briefed his argument a motion to suppress should not have been withdrawn, file to provide any evidence he was not given Miranda warnings and even if his statements were improperly admitted evidence that Lantz had $2,000 on his person and was a passenger in a car he owned where police found methamphetamine and marijuana and evidence he had smoked marijuana shortly before the car was pulled over was sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Holste v State et al.

Holste appealed dismissal of his declaratory judgment complaint arguing he is not required to register as a sex offender. The panel affirmed holding Holste admits he meets the definition of a sex offender in Utah code 77-41-1053(a) he must register as a sex offender and the complaint was properly dismissed.