close analysis in Utah

2026While the jury was generally informed that it must “consider each charge separately” and that its verdict on each 20241305-CA 4 2026 UT App 91 Miranda v. State charge must be unanimous, the instructions failed to link a specific act to each charge or otherwise clarify that the jurors must agree on the same underlying act for each conviction.

2024But as explained above, the text of rule 23B and our cases establish that a remand is warranted only when the defendant (continued…) 20230172-CA 22 2024 UT App 135 In re S.M.

2024Draper responded that, on the advice of Counsel, he would do so. ¶103 We’ve previously held that a defendant cannot prevail on an ineffective assistance claim based on a lack of information from counsel if the record shows that the defendant received the 20210738-CA 40 2024 UT App 152 State v. Draper relevant information from another source.

2024Father has not appealed that ruling. 20230338-CA 2 2024 UT App 52 In re A.S. juvenile court held a “merged pretrial and adjudication hearing” relating to Mother, and Mother was represented by counsel at that hearing.

2023Child was then placed in a foster care home. 20220624-CA 4 2023 UT App 95 In re M.M. ¶11 In July 2020, Mother appeared before the juvenile court for adjudication of the State’s verified petition for custody. 3 After negotiations with Mother, the State agreed to amend the petition by removing the allegation that Mother had severely abused Brother, replacing it with an allegation that Brother suffered “severe physical abuse while in the care of [Mother].” Following this amendment, Mother proceeded with adjudication and entered a plea pursuant to rule 34(e) of the Utah Rules of Juvenile Procedure

2023At the close of the hearing, the juvenile court found that there was “no evidence whatsoever of any harm or trauma being caused to D.M. from the visits with [Mother] that have occurred subsequent” to January 2022 and that “[s]upervised visitation is in the best interest of the Children.” The court emphasized that it intended “for the visits between the Children and [Mother] to occur, regardless of whether the Children want to go or not.” Shortly before trial, D.M. indicated 20220774-CA 16 2023 UT App 122 In re H.M. that he wanted visits with Mother to “last longer,” and H.M. indicated that he

2023The Hearing Officer began by noting that “[c]ases in Utah are relatively scant on employment law specifically involving the termination of educators.” But in the Hearing Officer’s view, a 2016 federal district court case from the District of Utah—Hays v. Park City School District, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1162 (D.

2019The Vocational Opinion—because it is a vocational report and not a medical report—does not fall under rule R602-2-2(B)(4) of the Utah Administrative Code, which states, “A hearing on objections to the [medical] panel report may be scheduled if there is a proffer of conflicting medical testimony showing a need to clarify the medical panel report.” Similarly, rule R602-2- 1(H)(5) is limited to the submission of untimely filed “medical records.” While Wallace does not argue it, rule R602-2-1(I)(8) appears to give an ALJ discretion to admit non-medical (continued…) 20180677-CA 7 2019 UT App 121 Wa