Search

Jason Werner appeals his jury conviction for aggravated sexual assault, a first degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Annotated section 76-5-405 (1997). Werner asserts the district court erred in concluding his confession was not the involuntary product of police coercion, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We affirm.

Todd Bovo (Defendant), proceeding pro se, appeals his conviction of reckless driving, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 41-6-45 (Supp. 2002), and disorderly conduct, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-9-102 (1999). Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying him a jury trial, and (2) the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him. Because we conclude Defendant was improperly denied a trial by jury, we reverse.

Robin M. Lafond appeals her conviction of illegal possession of a controlled substance in violation of Utah Code Ann. 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (1998). Lafond contends that because the investigating officer had no reasonable suspicion to justify the frisk and resulting search of her person, the district court erroneously denied her motion to suppress.

Lavar T. Jensen appeals his conviction of violating a protective order, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-5-108 (1999).

Gutierrez appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss enhancement of DUI charges.

G.R.M. (Grandmother) appeals, claiming the juvenile court erred in denying her petition for adoption. Specifically, Grandmother argues the juvenile court erred in not granting her "preferential consideration" as a relative during the adoption proceedings.

This case comes before the court on appeal from a grant of summary judgment for Plaintiffs, Robert W. Dunlap, Kathy L. Dunlap, and United Park City Mines Company (collectively, the Dunlaps). Defendants, Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Mayflower Recreational Fonds (collectively, Mayflower), appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment quieting title to a patented mining claim (the Marsac Lode)(1) in Summit County, Utah, in the Dunlaps. We reverse.

Plaintiff Huey Depew sued defendant Denton Sullivan to recover for injuries he sustained when their vehicles collided in a traffic accident. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant, and Plaintiff appealed. Because we hold that the trial court erred in restricting the scope of voir dire during jury selection because of religious considerations, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

American Housing Partners, Inc. (American) appeals from a judgment awarding Fairbourn Commercial, Inc. (Fairbourn) a real estate commission of $153,000 plus attorney fees and costs in the amount of $45,001. We affirm.

Plaintiffs Aspenwood, L.L.C. (Aspenwood), JMS Hidden, L.L.C., and JMS Financial, L.L.C. (together referred to as JMS) appeal various orders and judgments entered against them and in favor of Defendants C.A.T., L.L.C. (CAT), Paul Taggart (Taggart), and John Coats (Coats). We affirm.

Paul F. Bakanowski (Husband) appeals from the alimony provisions in a decree of divorce, arguing that the trial court failed to make adequate findings and failed to apply the appropriate test in awarding alimony. Because we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony, we reverse and remand.

Appellant L.K. appeals a juvenile court order permanently terminating her parental rights. She argues that the juvenile court erred in denying her pro se motion for substitution of counsel and in failing to adequately explore the reasons behind her dissatisfaction with her attorney. The State contends that the court adequately inquired into her dissatisfaction, as required by State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987). We conclude the inquiry was insufficient and remand so the oversight can be cured.

Defendant Kent Kirkwood appeals his conviction for Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Restricted Person, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-10-503(2)(a) (1999). Defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error under Rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence by conditionally ruling that the State could introduce evidence of Kirkwood's past crime if he testified. The State argues that the record is insufficient for this court to review Kirkwood's claim because he did not testify. We agree and therefore affirm.

S.S. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support certain factual findings made by the juvenile court, the legal conclusions were unsupported by factual findings, and there was insufficient evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the finding that Mother's continued custody of the children would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to them.

Defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of Theft, one a second degree felony, the other a third degree felony, both in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-6-404 (1999); Burglary of a Vehicle, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-6-204 (1999); giving False Personal Information to a Law Enforcement Officer, a class C misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-8-507 (1999); and Interfering with an Arrest, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-8-305 (1999). Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence presented for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the actual person who obtained unlawful possession of the motor vehicle. Defendant also argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Defendant failed to preserve his insufficiency claim or argue plain error or exceptional circumstances on appeal, failed to marshal the evidence, and failed to adequately brief any of the issues, we decline to review them. Therefore, we affirm.

Saratoga Springs Development, L.L.C., (Developer) appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment and awarding attorney fees to Trench Shoring Services, Inc. (Supplier). We affirm.

Defendant challenges his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (Supp. 2002). Specifically, Defendant claims that the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to detain him. We affirm.

K.S and K.S. (the Parents) are the adoptive parents of B.B. They appeal a juvenile court order asserting jurisdiction to enforce a pre-adoption visitation order issued in favor of S.H. and G.H., B.B.'s biological maternal grandparents (the Grandparents), after the Parents adopted B.B. The Parents also appeal the juvenile court's order awarding attorney fees to the Grandparents. Because we conclude the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction, we reverse both orders.

Defendant Sean G. Thompson appeals from a bench trial conviction of telephone harassment, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-9-201 (1999), as adopted by Provo City. Defendant argues that section 76-9-201 is both unconstitutionally overbroad and unconstitutionally vague. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that portions of section 76-9-201 are indeed facially overbroad. However, we affirm defendant's conviction because we conclude that the portion of subsection 76-9-201(1)(b) most applicable to defendant's actions is neither facially overbroad nor void for vagueness, and because we find no merit in defendant's ineffective assistance claim.

Defendant Martin Quinonez-Gaiton challenges his convictions on four counts of sodomy on a child, first degree felonies in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-5-403.1 (1999). Defendant argues that by prohibiting his lawyer's questioning of the victim about a sexual act the victim engaged in with another child and by denying his request for a hearing to explore the admissibility of such evidence, the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. In addition, Defendant assails the trial court's admission of hearsay testimony under Utah Code Ann. 76-5-411 (1999) and argues that reversal is warranted under the cumulative error doctrine. We reject these contentions and affirm the convictions.

Defendant Raymond John Chavez was charged with rape of a child, a first degree felony in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-5-402.1 (1999). A jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted rape of a child, also a first degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-5-402.1, 76-4-101 (1999). Defendant appeals. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

This case is before the court on respondent Joyce R. Wright's ("Wright") Motion for Leave to File Cross-Appeal and for Enlargement of Time to File Brief, which is opposed by petitioner Viktron/Lika Utah ("Viktron"). Wright initiated proceedings against Viktron under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act, Utah Code Ann. 34A-5-101 through 108 (1997 and Supp. 2000). Wright contended Viktron, her former employer, unlawfully discriminated against her based on her gender and unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about the alleged discrimination. An administrative law judge concluded that Viktron had both unlawfully discriminated against Wright and had retaliated against her. Viktron sought review of the decision by the Appeals Board of the Utah Labor Commission. In an April 7, 2000 decision, the Board concluded that Wright had failed to establish that Viktron discriminated against her on the basis of gender and reversed the determination on that claim only. However, the Board further concluded that Viktron had unlawfully retaliated against Wright by terminating her in retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination. Because the damage award was "justified in consequence of Viktron's unlawful retaliation," the Board affirmed the entire award.

Defendant Anna Marie Morgan appeals from a conviction of one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to distribute, a second degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 58-37-8(1)(a)(iii) (1998), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (1998). We reverse.

This case is before the court on respondent Joyce R. Wright's ("Wright") Motion for Leave to File Cross-Appeal and for Enlargement of Time to File Brief, which is opposed by petitioner Viktron/Lika Utah ("Viktron"). Wright initiated proceedings against Viktron under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act, Utah Code Ann. 34A-5-101 through 108 (1997 and Supp. 2000). Wright contended Viktron, her former employer, unlawfully discriminated against her based on her gender and unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about the alleged discrimination. An administrative law judge concluded that Viktron had both unlawfully discriminated against Wright and had retaliated against her. Viktron sought review of the decision by the Appeals Board of the Utah Labor Commission. In an April 7, 2000 decision, the Board concluded that Wright had failed to establish that Viktron discriminated against her on the basis of gender and reversed the determination on that claim only. However, the Board further concluded that Viktron had unlawfully retaliated against Wright by terminating her in retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination. Because the damage award was "justified in consequence of Viktron's unlawful retaliation," the Board affirmed the entire award.

Defendant North American Warranty Services, Inc. appeals the trial court's judgment awarding plaintiff David Pugh damages and attorney fees for North American's breach of its vehicle service contract with Pugh. We affirm and remand so that Pugh may additionally recover attorney fees incurred on appeal.

Defendant Edward Don Green appeals from a conviction pursuant to a conditional guilty plea for attempted theft, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-6-404 (1999), 76-6-412(1)(a)(iv) (1999), 76-4-101 (1999) and 76-4-102 (1999). We affirm.