Trial Court Must Strictly Comply With Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)

State of Utah v. Douglass Anderson Lovell, 2010 UT 48, (Utah Supreme Court July 27, 2010).

Lovell pleaded guilty to the aggravated murder of Joyce Yost.  Lovell moved to withdraw his plea.  The trial court denied the withdrawal.  Lovell appealed.  At the time of entry of plea, the trial court failed to inform Lovell of his constitutional rights as required by Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(e).  Because the trial court failed to strictly comply with Rule 11(e), the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case with instructions to allow a withdrawal of Lovell’s guilty plea.  The Court further noted that it was not enough that Lovell knew of his rights from experience in previous criminal cases.  The record in each case must reflect the defendant’s knowledge of his rights and his subsequent knowing waiver of those rights.  It is not enough to assume that defense counsel sufficiently explained the rights.  Yes, it may take a little more time, but constitutional rights may not be sacrificed in the name of judicial economy.

Finally, harmless error review does not apply to Rule 11(e).  Failure to comply with Rule 11(e) results in a presumption of harm to the defendant.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Lovell4072710.pdf

Illegally Obtained Hunting Permit is Void

State of Utah v. Roger Howard Steele, 2010 UT App. 185, (Utah Court of Appeals July 9, 2010).

Steele obtained a special permit to hunt on a game reserve, which was reserved for Utah residents.  Steele participated in the Hunt even though he was not a Utah resident.  He shot a trophy male mule deer.  He was charged with wanton destruction of protected wildlife and found guilty.  Steele Appealed.  He argued the trial court’s jury instruction as to mistake of law was incorrect.  If the correct instruction had been given he would have been acquitted because he showed evidence that he believed himself to be a Utah resident because his wife made frequent visits to Utah and her family resides in Utah, he did not have the required intent for conviction.  He additionally argued that even if the permit was obtained in violation of the residency requirement, the permit was not void by voidable, thus valid until revoked.

The Court affirmed finding that Steele knew he was not a resident and knew it because he did not put his own address, but that of his in-laws.  The Court further found that even if the instruction was incorrect, the likelihood that the jury would have changed its verdict with an instruction proposed by Defendant is ultimately very low.  Further, the Court found that the permit was void, not merely voidable.  As an illegal contract is void ab initio so is an illegally obtained permit.

Defendant’s speedy trial claim was inadequately briefed to prevail on those grounds.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/steele070910.pdf