The Utah Court of Appeals will hold Live Court on the campus of Southern Utah University as part of the Eccles APEX series. 

Judge Gregory K Orme, Judge Ryan D. Tenney, Judge Amy J. Oliver

Washington v. State, 20230553-CA - 10:30 AM 

Washington offered to pay a woman money in exchange for sexual intercourse. When the woman rejected Washington’s offer, he hugged her and told her there was “no other choice.” The victim broke free from Washington’s grasp and ran to a neighbor’s house. Washington was later charged with sexual solicitation and attempted rape. Before trial, questions arose about Washington’s competency. The district court received two competency evaluations, one finding Washington competent and the other finding him incompetent. Washington’s counsel stipulated to Washington’s competency. After a bench trial, Washington was found guilty of both charges.

Washington appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for attempted rape and that his counsel was ineffective for stipulating to his competency. The Utah Court of Appeals rejected Washington’s arguments and affirmed his convictions. Washington then filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that (1) the charging document was constitutionally deficient, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an error in the charging document, and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in the direct appeal, and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to his competency and appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising that issue on appeal. Washington also requested the appointment of counsel. The district court denied Washington’s request for appointed counsel, dismissed Washington’s first and second claims as procedurally barred, and granted summary judgment in the State’s favor on the third claim.

In this appeal, Washington argues that the district court erred in handling his postconviction relief petition in four respects: (1) by failing to address his fourth claim, (2) by summarily dismissing his first and second claims without giving him notice and an opportunity to respond, (3) by failing to consider appointment factors contained in the Postconviction Remedies Act before denying his request for appointed counsel, and (4) by granting the State’s motion for summary judgment on his third claim. The State concedes that a remand on Washington’s first and second claims is appropriate because Washington should have been given a chance to be heard on those claims, but it argues that this court should affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Washington’s third claim and that Washington did not properly raise his fourth claim before the district court.

State v. Mike, 20231100-CA – 11:30 a.m.

Defendant and his sister took a break from taking care of their mother. They went to a local bar and had several drinks, becoming intoxicated. Around two in the morning, and after having returned to their mother's home, Sister sustained significant injuries. Sister claimed that Defendant beat her up, then dragged her into the shower to wash her off. Defendant claimed that Sister, whose blood alcohol level tested at .286, had taken a nasty fall and that he helped her into the shower to wash off the blood. Sister went to a friend's house for help, and the friend's husband called the police. The police came and interviewed both Sister and Defendant, ultimately arresting Defendant and transporting him to jail. Meanwhile, Sister was taken to the ER by ambulance. Defendant faced a number of charges. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of domestic violence assault, obstructing justice, and intoxication.

On appeal, Defendant raises a number of issues. First, he argues that one of the officer's testimony, that Defendant asked about the penalty for assaulting a police officer, should not have been permitted. Second, Defendant contends that an officer who testified that he did not believe Sister‘s injuries could have been caused by falling should not have been permitted because the officer was not qualified to render that opinion. Third, Defendant argues that the court erred in allowing the friend to repeat the story that sister told her soon after the incident. This was hearsay, which is not usually permitted, but the trial court permitted it under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, Defendant claims his trial counsel provided him constitutionally deficient assistance.

The State refutes Defendant's arguments. It emphasizes that the trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a standard that recognizes the important role of trial courts in managing the cases before them. And it argues that counsel's performance was not deficient and, even if it was, that Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by it, meaning that he would have been convicted anyway.