Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Roger Hooban sued Unicity International for breach of a distribution agreement. The district court entered summary judgment for Unicity, holding that Hooban was not a party to the agreement and lacked standing to sue for its enforcement. Unicity then filed a motion for attorney fees under Utah's reciprocal attorney fees statute, Utah Code 78B-5-826. The district court denied the motion on the ground that section 826 was inapplicable given that Hooban was not a party to the underlying contract. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Bilanzich v. Lonetti to dictate a fee award in litigation that is based on a written contract where the contract allows at least one party to the litigation to recover fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 826 applied in this case; and (2) the statute thus authorized the court to award fees to Unicity.

Defendant Eric Butt was convicted of distributing harmful materials to a minor when he mailed rudimentary nude drawings of himself to his five-year-old daughter. On appeal, Butt argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State presented nothing more than the drawings themselves. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Defendant "distributed" the material to a minor under Utah Code 76-10-1206(1); (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the material was "harmful" as defined by Utah Code 76-10-1201(5)(a); and (3) Defendant's argument that the jury used the incorrect community standard was not preserved for appeal.

Eighteen-month-old Wonzie Barrientos's mother, Jessica Nelson, was killed in a car accident, the result of a high-speed chase in which an Ogden City police officer pursued a speeding car that ultimately crashed into Nelson's car. Plaintiff sued the police officer and Ogden City for negligence. Ogden City defended the case on the ground that it had governmental immunity and, if it did not, that it was not negligent. Ogden City won at trial and Plaintiff moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant Plaintiff a new trial, because Ogden City's lawyer violated orders in limine by asking inflammatory questions that served no purpose other than to create prejudice; and (2) it was likely the jury's verdict was impacted by the inappropriate questioning. Remanded for a new trial.

Petitioner David Gregg was convicted of rape, a first-degree felony. The trial court sentenced Gregg to an indeterminate term of five years to life. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Gregg subsequently filed an amended petition for post-confiction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court dismissed all of Gregg's claims as procedurally barred under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) because of a procedural error on behalf of the court clerk. The Supreme Court vacated Gregg's conviction, holding (1) Gregg qualified for an exception to the procedural bar because the Court would not hold Gregg accountable for the clerk of court's procedural error; and (2) Gregg received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Remanded for a new trial.

This case arose from a lawsuit in federal district court over the death of fifteen-year-old Tucker Thayer. In that suit, Tucker's parents alleged that Washington County School District officials were negligent when they allowed a gun loaded with blank cartridges to be used in a school musical production, resulting in their son's death. The school district asserted governmental immunity from the claims. The Utah Supreme Court accepted certification to address a novel issue of state law and held that the Licensing Exception of the Governmental Immunity Act did not apply to the conduct of the school district officials and those acting on the district's behalf, as any authorization of the presence of the firearm on campus was not a formal, official authorization by a governmental body or employee endowed with regulatory power to issue such an authorization. In addition, a governmental entity such as the school district may not insulate itself from suit by routinely authorizing and approving the negligent conduct of its employees.

Wolfgango Ruiz pled guilty to one count of attempted sexual abuse of a child, a third degree felony. Prior to his sentencing, Ruiz made a request to withdraw his plea on the ground that his original defense counsel had not informed him of the immigration consequences of a felony conviction. District Court Judge Fuchs initially granted Ruiz's motion, but upon a motion to reconsider, Judge Skanchy reversed the order that permitted Ruiz to withdraw his plea. The court of appeals reversed Judge Skanchy's ruling and reinstated Judge Fuch's order based on Judge Skanchy's failure to state the basis for his ruling on the record and the principal that motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be liberally granted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals err in vacating Judge Skanchy's ruling because the basis for the ruling was apparent on the record; and (2) recent amendments to the Plea Withdrawal Statute superseded prior case law stating that presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be liberally granted. Remanded.

This appeal encompassed two consolidated cases. In the first case, Charles Moa entered a no contest plea to a third degree felony but later filed motions to withdraw that plea. Moa first stipulated that his plea was taken in compliance with Utah R. Crim. P. 11 but, on appeal, argued that his plea was not taken in compliance with Rule 11. The court of appeals held that Moa failed to demonstrate plain error in the district court's denial of his motions. In the second case, Moa pled guilty to two felonies and a misdemeanor. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Moa's argument that the sentencing judge relied on irrelevant information in imposing the sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the first case, by stipulating that his plea was taken in compliance with Rule 11, Moa invited any error that may have been committed by the district court; and (2) in the second case, the court of appeals was correct in concluding that there was no evidence that the district court relied on any improper information in imposing consecutive sentences.

James Alexander pled guilty to burglary with intent to commit sexual battery. Prior to sentencing, Alexander filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing (1) the district court failed to apprise him of the elements of sexual battery as required by Utah R. Crim. P. 11, and (2) his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The court denied Alexander's motion and sentenced him accordingly. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) the district court did not comply with Rule 11 at the plea hearing because it did not inform Alexander of the elements of sexual battery, and (2) the violation of Rule 11 rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the court of appeals erred in limiting its review to whether the district court had complied with Rule 11 during the plea hearing, the record demonstrated that Alexander's plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made; (2) the court of appeals did not err in declining to require a showing of prejudice; and (3) because this case involved a different issue than the one addressed in the Court's holding in Hurst v. Cook, the two cases did not conflict.

Troy Kell was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Kell subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which the district court dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed. Kell thereafter filed a Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, asking the district court to relieve him from its earlier dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion, holding that because Kell's postconviction petition had been dismissed, appealed, and affirmed on appeal, the underlying denial of his petition for postconviction relief was no longer "pending" and thus the court could not consider the merits of the 60(b) motion. The Supreme Court affirmed on alternate grounds, holding (1) Rule 60(b) does not have a "pending" requirement and is not necessarily inappropriate in all cases in which the Court has already ruled, but it may not be used as a way to circumvent the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA); and (2) in this case, Kell's claims were barred by the PCRA and therefore could not be brought under Rule 60(b).

Plaintiff's son, Hayden, was involved in a near-drowning accident in which he suffered severe permanent injuries. Plaintiff subsequently sought coverage for the cost of his treatment from Wasatch Crest Mutual Insurance, under which Hayden was insured. Wasatch Crest was later declared insolvent, and Plaintiff filed a claim against the Wasatch Crest estate. The liquidator of the estate denied Plaintiff's claim, concluding that Wasatch Crest had properly terminated coverage under the language of the plan. The Supreme Court reversed, interpreting the plan in favor of coverage. Plaintiff resubmitted her claim for medical expenses to the liquidator for payment under the Utah Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act. One year later, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment with the district court. The liquidator subsequently issued a second amended notice of determination denying Plaintiff's claim on the merits. The district court then denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as Plaintiff had not yet challenged the second amended notice of determination and could do so under the Liquidation Act. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because Plaintiff did not appeal from a final judgment and had not satisfied any of the exceptions to the final judgment rule.