City v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 21 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 20100355–CA.,20100355–CA. |
| Citation | 2011 UT App 128,680 Utah Adv. Rep. 30,253 P.3d 1118 |
| Parties | SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee,v.Austin James HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
253 P.3d 1118
680 Utah Adv. Rep. 30
2011 UT App 128
SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Austin James HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 20100355–CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
April 21, 2011.
[253 P.3d 1118]
Jon D. Williams, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.Dawn W. Emery, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.Before Judges ORME, THORNE, and VOROS.
[253 P.3d 1119]
MEMORANDUM DECISION
¶ 1 Defendant Austin James Hughes appeals from a Sery plea to several class B misdemeanors.1 See generally State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935, 938–40 (Utah Ct.App.1988). He challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after he was stopped by police. Hughes contends that the stop was not justified at its inception; he does not challenge the scope of the detention. We affirm.2
¶ 2 At 2:30 a.m. on February 15, 2009, with temperatures in the twenties, a Salt Lake City police officer noticed Hughes, clad in jeans and a T-shirt, running at a “full sprint” eastbound down the middle of a city street. Hughes then ran diagonally across State Street outside of the crosswalk and entered a bank parking lot. The officer followed and stopped Hughes. The sole issue on appeal is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, this stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. Whether the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress is a legal conclusion, which we review for correctness. See State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95, ¶¶ 10–15, 103 P.3d 699. However, we review for clear error the factual findings underlying a trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress. See State v. Krukowski, 2004 UT 94, ¶ 11, 100 P.3d 1222.
¶ 3 “[I]t is settled law that ‘a police officer may detain and question an individual when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.’ ” State v. Markland, 2005 UT 26, ¶ 10, 112 P.3d 507 (quoting State v. Chapman, 921 P.2d 446, 450 (Utah 1996)). A stop is justified if it is “incident to a traffic violation committed in the officer['s] presence.” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant question is “whether the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action, regardless of the individual officer's state of mind.” State v. Worwood, 2007 UT 47, ¶ 28, 164 P.3d 397 (alteration in original) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 4 The trial court ruled that the detention was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hull v. Wilcock (In re Estate of Wilcock)
...of witnesses, and we will not second-guess the trial court where there is a reasonable basis to support its findings.” Salt Lake City v. Hughes, 2011 UT App 128, ¶ 5, 253 P.3d 1118 (internal quotation marks omitted). That evidence included Friend's testimony that while she was assisting Fat......
-
State v. Singh
...is responsible for determining the credibility of a witness and assigning the proper weight to his or her testimony. See Salt Lake City v. Hughes, 2011 UT App 128, ¶ 5, 253 P.3d 1118 (mem.) (“In determining the facts, the trial court is in a unique position to assess the credibility of witn......
-
Henderson v. Labor Comm'n
... ... [253 P.3d 1116] Raymond N. Malouf, Logan, for Petitioner.Hans M. Scheffler, Sandy, and Alan L. Hennebold, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.Before Judges McHUGH, ORME, and VOROS.MEMORANDUM DECISIONVOROS, Judge: 1 Joan Henderson (Claimant) seeks review of a decision of the ... ...
-
Assmann v. State
...otherwise found the trooper's testimony to be more credible. We defer to a trial court's determinations on credibility. See Salt Lake City v. Hughes, 2011 UT App 128, ¶ 5, 253 P.3d 1118 (“It is the province of the trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not second-......