UTAH COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN CACHE COUNTY

UTAH COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN CACHE COUNTY

Salt Lake City, UT - The Utah Court of Appeals will hold a special oral argument session at Utah State University in Logan on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The session, which is open to the public, will take place in the Russell/Wanlass Performance Hall, located at 4030 Old Main Hill. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge David N. Mortensen, and Judge John D. Luthy. The panel will hear the following cases:

State v. Qayum, 20240207 - 10:00 a.m.

Defendant and his sister took a break from taking care of their mother. They went to a local bar and had several drinks, becoming intoxicated. Around two in the morning, and after having returned to their mother's home, Sister sustained significant injuries. Sister claimed that the Defendant beat her up, then dragged her into the shower to wash her off. Defendant claimed that Sister, whose blood alcohol level tested at .286, had taken a nasty fall and that he helped her into the shower to wash off the blood. Sister went to a friend's house for help, and the friend's husband called the police. The police came and interviewed both Sister and Defendant, ultimately arresting Defendant and transporting him to jail. Meanwhile, Sister was taken to the ER by ambulance. Defendant faced a number of charges. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of domestic violence assault, obstructing justice, and intoxication.

On appeal, Defendant raises a number of issues. First, he argues that one of the officer's testimony that Defendant asked about the penalty for assaulting a police officer should not have been permitted. Second, Defendant contends that an officer who testified that he did not believe Sister's injuries could have been caused by falling should not have been permitted because the officer was not qualified to render that opinion. Third, Defendant argues that the court erred in allowing the friend to repeat the story that Sister told her soon after the incident. This was hearsay, which is not usually permitted, but the trial court permitted it under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, Defendant claims his trial counsel provided him constitutionally deficient assistance.

The State refutes Defendant's arguments. It emphasizes that the trial court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a standard that recognizes the important role of trial courts in managing the cases before them. And it argues that counsel's performance was not deficient and, even if it was, that Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by it, meaning that he would have been convicted anyway.

State v. Devore, 20240393 at 10:45 a.m

In 2018, Devore entered another man's home, found that man with his (Devore's) ex-wife, and punched the man in the face. Devore later pled guilty to aggravated burglary. As part of his plea, Devore acknowledged that he might be ordered to pay restitution related to the burglary and the associated assault. In July 2020, Devore was sentenced to sixty days of jail time and forty-eight months probation. In 2021, the Utah Office for Victims of Crime requested $360 in restitution for the other man's medical expenses. Then in November 2023, after the other man had facial surgery, the State filed a motion for an additional $30,000 in restitution. A final order of restitution awarding the requested $30,000 was entered in 2024.

On appeal, Devore argues that the State's request for additional restitution was untimely and, thus, prohibited by the version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act in effect at the time of sentencing and by the amended version of that Act that was in effect when the State submitted its request for additional restitution. Devore's trial attorney did not object to the order for additional restitution on the basis that the request was untimely. On appeal, Devore contends that his trial counsel's failure to object to the order on that basis amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court's issuance of the order amounted to plain error. Devore also argues-based on evidence that the other man had two facial injuries prior to the altercation during the burglary-that the trial court erroneously determined that Devore's actions were what caused the other man to need a $30,000 facial surgery.

Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges' views about the case.

# # #

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.