Gallegos challenge in Utah

2026We therefore address Gallegos’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his request. 20240219-CA 20 2026 UT App 120 Gallegos v. Brewski’s ¶43 Second, the text in rule 26(a)(4)(C)(iii) is permissive; it expressly provides that the court “may preclude an expert disclosed only as a rebuttal expert from testifying in the case in chief.” Id. (emphasis added).

2026We therefore address Gallegos’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his request. 20240219-CA 20 2026 UT App 120 Gallegos v. Brewski’s ¶43 Second, the text in rule 26(a)(4)(C)(iii) is permissive; it expressly provides that the court “may preclude an expert disclosed only as a rebuttal expert from testifying in the case in chief.” Id. (emphasis added).

2026The use of the “word ‘may’ is commonly understood as being one that grants discretionary power to a court.” North Fork Meadows Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Dove, 2023 UT App 107, ¶ 19 , 537 P.3d 258 (cleaned up).

2026The use of the “word ‘may’ is commonly understood as being one that grants discretionary power to a court.” North Fork Meadows Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Dove, 2023 UT App 107, ¶ 19 , 537 P.3d 258 (cleaned up).

2020I also agree with the majority’s analysis in 20190029-CA 36 2020 UT App 162 State v. Gallegos Part III.A rejecting Gallegos’s challenge to the admission of evidence about the respective prison sentences he and Cellmate were serving when the shank was discovered. ¶72 I part ways with my colleagues in their conclusion in Part III.B that evidence of Gallegos’s potential sentence was admitted in error.

2020Even Gallegos acknowledges that the evidence tended to show that the two men “owe[d] a duty of loyalty to one another” that included sometimes “tak[ing] other charges for their fellow gang members,” and that at least some gang evidence was “reasonably necessary for the State to try to refute Gallegos’s defense that the shank belonged to Cellmate.” But Gallegos claims the court admitted too much gang evidence, specifically taking issue with the admission of photographs of Gallegos’s and Cellmate’s tattoos, asserting that “they were highly prejudicial and not necessary to establish gang affiliat

2018State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 (explaining that courts “will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); State v. Garcia, 2017 UT App 200, ¶ 19 , 407 P.3d 1061 (explaining that a defendant must “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequate assistance by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions” (cleaned up); State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539 , 542–44 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (accepting the State’s suggested conceivable tactical bases and therefo

2018State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 (explaining that courts “will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); State v. Garcia, 2017 UT App 200, ¶ 19 , 407 P.3d 1061 (explaining that a defendant must “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequate assistance by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions” (cleaned up); State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539 , 542–44 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (accepting the State’s suggested conceivable tactical bases and therefo

2018State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 (explaining that courts “will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); State v. Garcia, 2017 UT App 200, ¶ 19 , 407 P.3d 1061 (explaining that a defendant must “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequate assistance by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions” (cleaned up); State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539 , 542–44 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (accepting the State’s suggested conceivable tactical bases and therefo

2018After reviewing the record we are satisfied that Gallegos's contention was adequately preserved. ¶14 An issue is preserved if it is "presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue." 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc. , 2004 UT 72 , ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (cleaned up).

2018After reviewing the record we are satisfied that Gallegos's contention was adequately preserved. ¶14 An issue is preserved if it is "presented to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue." 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc. , 2004 UT 72 , ¶ 51, 99 P.3d 801 (cleaned up).

2018State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 (explaining that courts “will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); State v. Garcia, 2017 UT App 200, ¶ 19 , 407 P.3d 1061 (explaining that a defendant must “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequate assistance by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions” (cleaned up); State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539 , 542–44 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (accepting the State’s suggested conceivable tactical bases and therefo

2018State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 (explaining that courts “will not question such decisions unless there is no reasonable basis supporting them” (emphasis added) (cleaned up)); State v. Garcia, 2017 UT App 200, ¶ 19 , 407 P.3d 1061 (explaining that a defendant must “overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel rendered adequate assistance by persuading the court that there was no conceivable tactical basis for counsel’s actions” (cleaned up); State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539 , 542–44 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (accepting the State’s suggested conceivable tactical bases and therefo

2018We further conclude that the trial court 20150688-CA 28 2018 UT App 192 State v. Gallegos properly denied Gallegos’s motion to suppress because the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to temporarily seize Gallegos.

2018Gallegos does not acknowledge in his motion that 20150688-CA 11 2018 UT App 192 State v. Gallegos Victim’s blood was found on his knife, shirt, pants, and ear. 7 He does not acknowledge that Witness gave a detailed description of Gallegos, whom Witness saw from ten feet away, which description enabled officers to locate Gallegos quickly.

2018Specifically, "joinder of multiple offenses is appropriate if the requirements of Utah Code section 77-8a-1(1) are met and neither the defendant nor the prosecution is prejudiced as a result of the joinder." State v. Balfour , 2008 UT App 410 , ¶ 18, 198 P.3d 471 .

2018Specifically, "joinder of multiple offenses is appropriate if the requirements of Utah Code section 77-8a-1(1) are met and neither the defendant nor the prosecution is prejudiced as a result of the joinder." State v. Balfour , 2008 UT App 410 , ¶ 18, 198 P.3d 471 .

1993Issues (2), (3), (4), and (8) were addressed directly in State v. Peterson, 841 P.2d 21 (Utah App.1992), where the application for the wiretap order, its supporting affidavit, and the order were the same documents as those challenged by Gallegos. 1 Accordingly, these issues need no further analysis here.