State v. Millett
State v. Millett, 2025 UT App 67 (Harris, J.)
Criminal/Criminal Procedure
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court (1) properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress under the public safety exception, (2) properly denied Defendant’s motion for directed verdict, (3) properly allowed Expert to testify about the results of confirmation test, even where testimony about initial test was absent, and (4) properly proceeded with trial without Defendant where Defendant’s absence was voluntary.
- Arguments regarding the jury selection process were unpreserved or inadequately briefed.
- Judicial tip: Courts should not hesitate to postpone a trial when the jury pool is so small that it starts affecting the court’s analysis regarding for-cause objections.