Bluffdale City v. Verive, 2026 UT App 101 (Harris, J.)

Criminal Law

The Utah Court of Appeals held:

(1) Defendant’s conviction was not against the clear weight of the evidence.

(2) The district court did not exceed its discretion in allowing the admission of certain evidence because that evidence was intrinsic to the charged crimes.

(3) Defendant failed to preserve any argument related to the constitutional admissibility of evidence that he reacted with silence.

(4) Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance because any error counsel may have committed by not lodging an objection to the City’s position on the admissibility of Defendant’s silence would not have made any difference to the outcome of Defendant’s trial. For the same reasons, the district court did not plainly err.

Practice tip:

To successfully preserve an issue for appellate review, the district court must be presented with an issue in a way that gives it an opportunity to rule on it. In the circumstance where the court makes a quick ruling without pausing, attorneys are expected to lodge objections and, if necessary, ask for the benefit of the record to set forth any opposition they might have to a position the other side takes. Attorneys who fail to ask for the benefit of the record in a situation like this likely have not done enough to preserve their position.

Read the full court opinion

by The Appellate Group

2026, Court of Appeals, Criminal, Q3

The Appellate Group