Category: Utah Appellate Court Opinions
-
State v. Frausto, 2002 UT App 259
What words in jury instructions should the court offer further definition for?
-
State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89 (Utah 1981)
When must a court further define terms of common usage given in a jury instruction?
-
State v. Abonza, 2025 UT App 101 – Analysis
In State v. Abonza, 2025 UT App 101, the Utah Court of Appeals delivered a sharp reminder: Police need probable cause at the moment of arrest, not a prediction that…
-
State v Hintze, 2022 UT App 117
This appeal involves a question of whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated after the State did not prosecute the case for over two years…
-
State v Buranek, 2025 UT App 92
This appeal involved a question of whether a trial court improperly denied a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, claiming he had been entrapped by an undercover police officer. Facts…
-
State v. Christensen, 2025 UT App 86
A Motion to sever is granted when it is believed that different defendants or charges need to be tried separately. In the recent Utah Court of Appeals Case, State v.…
-
Utah Supreme Court Narrows Human Trafficking Law in State v. Andrus
May 2025 – The Utah Supreme Court just made it harder to convict someone of child trafficking without solid proof of a transaction. In State v. Andrus, the court threw…
-
Garner v. Kadince, 2025 UT App 80: Utah Lawyers Sanctioned for Citing AI Hallucinations
In a recent ruling, the Utah Court of Appeals sanctioned attorneys for submitting a legal brief containing fabricated case citations generated by artificial intelligence. This incident, involving the case Garner…
-
State v Jones, 2025 UT App 56
Facts of the Case Jones was convicted at trial on three counts of assault against a peace officer. While police conducted a roadside DUI investigation, Jones drove by at a…
-
Case Brief: State v Austin, 2025 UT App 51
This case involves an internet sting operation conducted by an undercover police officer posing as someone offering a minor for sex with adults. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether Austin…
-
State v Lightel, 2025 UT App 40
Facts of the Case Lightel pled guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on his possession of child sex abuse material (CSAM or child pornography). An…
-
State v Smith, 2025 UT App 35 – Destroyed Evidence
Smith was convicted by a jury at trial on a felony charge of rape. He raised several issues on appeal, including multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and a…