State v. Qayum
State v. Qayum, 2025 UT App 178 (Harris, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Counsel did not render ineffective assistance by not renewing a motion to dismiss (or moving for a directed verdict) on entrapment because any motion would have been futile. Likewise, the district court did not plainly err by not sua sponte dismissing the case.
- The district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case based on the destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence.
- The district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss regarding a witness’s status as a confidential informant.
- The district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements made during his post-arrest interview.
- Practice tip: The use of an attractive agent being a factor that could contribute to an entrapment finding has been limited to non-sexual crimes, and that regarding sexual crimes, the attractiveness of the putative victim should not be viewed as a material factor in an entrapment analysis.