Gordon R. Hall

This case is a medical malpractice suit brought by the Bensons against LDS Hospital and several physicians, alleging negligent care during the 1990 delivery of Jesse Benson that caused severe birth injuries. During discovery, the hospital withheld certain documents under asserted care review and peer review privileges; the trial court ordered their production after finding the hospital had improperly commingled privileged and nonprivileged materials, thereby waiving protection. On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutes creating the privileges contain no commingling-waiver rule and that the trial court lacked authority to compel disclosure on that basis. The court remanded for a proper determination, after evidentiary showings, of which specific documents qualify for privilege and whether any medical-record documents were improperly withheld.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved whether a restitution order for unpaid state income taxes survived the death of defendant Edward Christensen during his appeal of convictions for tax-related misdemeanors and felonies. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, ruling that the restitution order did not abate upon the defendant's death. The court held that while purely punitive criminal penalties like prison terms and fines abate under precedent, the restitution order—limited to the exact taxes owed plus penalties and interest—has the same effect as a civil judgment under Utah statutes and thus survives. The appeal on the restitution order is to continue after substitution of parties, with the order remaining valid if affirmed or abating if reversed.

criminal lawtaxes

In State v. Blair, defendant James Earl Blair appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree murder, which he had entered in exchange for the prosecution not seeking the death penalty after he was charged in the 1978 shooting death of Robyn LeRoy Halsey during a robbery. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that Blair's plea was knowing and voluntary because he understood the elements of the offense and the risks of trial, including the possibility of accomplice liability even if he did not fire the fatal shot. The court also rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that Blair's attorney provided competent advice about the strength of the evidence and the plea bargain, and that Blair had multiple opportunities to raise inconsistencies in his statements before and after the plea. Finally, the court declined to apply the doctrine of laches as an alternative ground for affirmance.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gardner, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated burglary after allegedly shooting someone while under the influence of the prescription drug Prozac, which he claimed caused temporary insanity. He sought to raise a defense of involuntary intoxication under a standard similar to Colorado's or Utah's pre-1983 law, arguing it was not covered by the mental illness defense statute. The trial court ruled that involuntary intoxication falls under Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-305, which addresses defenses based on mental illness or diminished capacity, and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed this on appeal. The court reasoned that Utah lacks a separate statute for involuntary intoxication, so such claims must meet the criteria of the existing mental illness provision to negate the required mens rea, consistent with approaches in other jurisdictions.

criminal law

The case involved attorney A. Paul Schwenke's appeal of a Board of Bar Commissioners order affirming his disbarment and a restitution obligation of $97,250 for misappropriating funds from a client in a 1985 personal injury matter. The court affirmed the discipline after reviewing claims that Schwenke had not been properly served with the formal complaint and related notices. The core reasoning was that service by certified mail to his known practice address and roster address was valid under the circumstances, he received actual notice of the sanctions hearing, and he was given a full opportunity to contest the allegations on the merits despite the entry of default. The court rejected his other arguments as meritless.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of Maurine Hunsaker, a Gas-A-Mat cashier abducted and murdered in 1986 by Ralph Leroy Menzies, a parolee from the Utah State Prison. Plaintiffs alleged that the State of Utah was negligent in its parole supervision of Menzies and that Gas-A-Mat failed in its duty to provide adequate security at the workplace. The district court granted summary judgment to the State and dismissed claims against Gas-A-Mat. On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court affirmed both rulings, holding that undisputed facts entitled the State to judgment as a matter of law on the negligence claims and that Gas-A-Mat was protected by the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure