State v. Pham

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Pham

2018 UT 0, 416 P.3d 1122

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 2018

DocketCase No. 20160502

StatusPublished

This text of 2018 UT 0 (State v. Pham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pham, 2018 UT 0, 416 P.3d 1122 (Utah 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

On September 12, 2016, we granted certiorari in this case and in State v. Goins. On September 6, 2017, we issued an opinion in Goins, 2017 UT 61 , --- P.3d ----. After Goins issued, we requested supplemental briefing and asked the parties to address the impact that our holding in Goins may have on Pham's appeal. After reviewing the supplemental briefing and conducting oral argument, we conclude that we improvidently granted the petition for certiorari for two reasons.

First, unless and until Utah Rule of Evidence 804 is amended, we believe a Confrontation Clause challenge, like the one Pham presses here, is unlikely to arise again in this context.

Second, a majority of the court, motivated by principles of constitutional avoidance, would have been inclined to bypass the Confrontation Clause question and likely conclude that even if we were to assume a Confrontation Clause violation, any error resulting from the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because this would have yielded a fact-intensive analysis with little precedential value, we conclude that we improvidently granted the petition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ John A. Pearce

John A. Pearce

Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On September 12, 2016, we granted certiorari in this case and in State v. Goins. On September 6, 2017, we issued an opinion in Goins, 2017 UT 61 , --- P.3d ----. After Goins issued, we requested supplemental briefing and asked the parties to address the impact that our holding in Goins may have on Pham's appeal. After reviewing the supplemental briefing and conducting oral argument, we conclude that we improvidently granted the petition for certiorari for two reasons.

First, unless and until Utah Rule of Evidence 804 is amended, we believe a Confrontation Clause challenge, like the one Pham presses here, is unlikely to arise again in this context.

Second, a majority of the court, motivated by principles of constitutional avoidance, would have been inclined to bypass the Confrontation Clause question and likely conclude that even if we were to assume a Confrontation Clause violation, any error resulting from the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because this would have yielded a fact-intensive analysis with little precedential value, we conclude that we improvidently granted the petition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ John A. Pearce

John A. Pearce

Justice

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2018 UT 0, 416 P.3d 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pham-utah-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack