Our Attorneys Help Make the Law
Read more about the case results obtained by the attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP in Salt Lake City, Utah, for cases involving making the law.
6 P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000)
This case became the seminal and most often cited case in Utah law involving what "prior bad acts" evidence of a defendant may be used in a criminal trial.
972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998)
The State sought to use Utah's Subpoena Powers Act to coerce testimony and cooperation from potential witnesses to a murder committed in their home. This case first defined the limitations of the Subpoena Powers Act and limited the State's power to use the act.
State v. Herrera
993 P.2d 854 (Utah 1999), see also 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995)
The defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. This case became the seminal Utah case challenging the ultimate elimination of a true insanity defense in Utah.
780 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1989); Tuttle v. State of Utah, 57 F.3d 879 (10th Cir. 1995)
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The case was appealed and the appellate court reversed. Of importance, the Tuttle cases made state law regarding the use and unreliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony at trial. State v. Stettina 868 P.2d 108 (Utah App. 1994) The defendant was convicted of kidnapping and forcible sexual abuse. This case importantly delineated the Utah rule that consecutive sentences may not be aggregated to exceed 30 years and the exceptions to it. State v. Vigil 842 P.2d 843 (Utah 1992) The defendant was charged with various counts of murder and attempted murder. This case ultimately redefined what is required under Utah law to convict a person for "attempted" murder. As the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, it found there could be no crime of attempted "depraved indifference" murder.
779 P.2d 1116 (Utah 1989); State v. Mitchell, 824 P.2d 469 (Utah App. 1991)
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial. The case was appealed and reversed, resulting in a new trial. On retrial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was appealed again, and state law was made regarding the use and unreliability of post-hypnotic testimony at trial. Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court agreed that hypnotically enhanced testimony is inherently unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony required reversal.