UTAH SUPREME COURT

Case No. 20170304-SC

IN THE

UTAH SUPREME COURT

STATE OF UTAH,

Plaintiff/Petitioner,

v.

COOPER JOHN ANTHONY VAN HUIZEN,

Defendant/Respondent.

Brief of Petitioner

On Writ of Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

ELIZABETH HUNT ELIZABETH HUNT LLC 569 Browning Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84105

Counsel for Respondent

CHRISTOPHER D. BALLARD (8497) Assistant Solicitor General SEAN D. REYES (7969) Utah Attorney General 160 East 300 South, 6th Floor P.O. Box 140854 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0854 Telephone: (801) 366-0180

BRODY E. FLINT Weber County Attorney's Office

Counsel for Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .............................................................................. 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND RULES....................... 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 4

A. Summary of facts. ....................................................................................... 4 B. Summary of proceedings........................................................................... 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 12 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................... 16 I. The Court of Appeals Erroneously Failed to Apply the Preservation Rule ............................................................................................ 17 A. The record does not support the court of appeals' reasoning

for refusing to apply the preservation rule........................................... 20 1. The record does not show that Defendant lacked the

information necessary to raise this issue. ....................................... 21 2. The record does not show that, given the judge's

husband's role, rule 2.11 required the judge to disclose her spousal relationship on the record. ................................................. 22 B. The court of appeals erred by filling in the record gaps with speculation. ................................................................................................ 31 II. The Court of Appeals Erred by Reversing Without a Showing of Prejudice ........................................................................................................... 32 A. Although the Reichert court reversed without proof of actual bias, it did so under circumstances that do not exist here.................. 33

-i-

B. Excusing a prejudice showing undermines the preservation rule and encourages parties to seek unfair advantage by delaying disqualification motions to get the benefit of reversal on a lower burden of proof. .....................................................................38

C. A violation of a judicial conduct rule alone should not require reversal because the rules do not have the force of law. .....................40

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................41 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE......................................................................42 ADDENDA

Addendum A: State v. Van Huizen, 2017 UT App 30, 392 P.3d 933 Addendum B: Utah Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.11 Addendum C: Omnibus Ruling and Order on Defendant's Post-

Sentence Motions (R586-97) Addendum D: Docket of Second District Court Case No. 131902542

-ii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) ...........................................................21 New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000)....................................................................21 United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) ......................................40

STATE CASES Adoption of K.A.S., 2016 UT 55,, 390 P.3d 278 .....................................................19 Blaisdell v. City of Rochester, 609 A.2d 388 (N.H. 1992) ......................................37 Dahl v. Dahl, 2015 UT 79, 794 Utah Adv. Rep. 5 ................................................31 In re Jacobs, 791 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. App. 2010)...........................................28, 30 Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, 122 P.3d 628 ..........................................................9 Regional Sales Agency, Inc. v. Reichert,

830 P.2d 252 (Utah 1992)....................................................11, 14, 33, 35, 36, 37 Scott v. United States, 559 A.2d 745, (D.C. 1989).................................................37 Smith v. Beckman, 683 P.2d 1214 (Colo. App. 1984) ...........................................28 State v. Alonzo, 973 P.2d 975 (Utah 1998) ................................................11, 33, 34 State v. Archambeau, 820 P.2d 920 (Utah App. 1991)..........................................19 State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, 361 P.3d 104 .........................................................17, 40 State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55, 82 P.3d 1106 ..............................................................19 State v. Gardner, 789 P.2d 273 (Utah 1989) ....................................................33, 34 State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, 384 P.3d 186.................................................17, 18, 19

-iii-

State v. Harrell, 546 N.W.2d 115 (Wis. 1996)........................................... 27, 28, 30 State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, 10 P.3d 346................................................. 17, 18, 38 State v. Houston, 2015 UT 40, 353 P.3d 55 ........................................................... 17 State v. Jimenez, 2012 UT 41, 284 P.3d 640..................................................... 19, 39 State v. Lafferty, 2001 UT 19, 20 P.3d 342............................................................. 17 State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, 12 P.3d 92 .............................................. 18, 31, 32 State v. Logan, 689 P.2d 778 (Kan. 1984) .............................................................. 28 State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1994) ............................................................ 19 State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, 192 P.3d 867 .................................................... 17, 18, 39 State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5, 253 P.3d 1082 ............................................ 19, 39, 41 State v. Neeley, 748 P.2d 1091 (Utah 1998) .................................. 11, 33, 34, 40, 41 State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29, 94 P.3d 186 ............................................ 19 State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, 247 P.3d 344 ................................................................... 39 State v. Rushton, 2017 UT 21, 395 P.3d 92 ............................................................. 3 State v. Smith, 635 So. 2d 512 (La. App. 1994) .................................................... 38 State v. Van Huizen, 2017 UT App 30, 392 P.3d 933 .................................. passim Velardo v. Ovitt, 933 A.2d 227 (Vt. 2007) ............................................................. 38

STATE STATUTES Utah Code Ann. ?78A-3-102(3)(a) (West 2009) ................................................... 1

-iv-

STATE RULES Utah R. App. P. 23B ............................................................................................... 18 Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) ............................................................................................17 Utah Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.11 ........................................... 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31

-v-

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download