State of Utah v. Tunzi, 20000022
| Decision Date | 14 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | 20000022 |
| Citation | 998 P.2d 816 |
| Parties | This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter. State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph P. Tunzi, Defendant and Petitioner.2000 UT 38 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH FILED: |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
The Honorable Judith S. H. Atherton
Attorneys: Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Laura B. Dupaix, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake
City, for plaintiff Joan C. Watt, John O'Connell, Jr., Salt Lake City, for
defendant
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
1 Petitioner, Joseph P. Tunzi, by writ of certiorari, seeks review of an order of remand issued by the court of appeals directing the trial court to prepare and approve a "statement of the evidence or proceedings" pursuant to Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 11(g). We grant petitioner's writ of certiorari, reverse the court of appeals, and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.
2 Following a two-day trial, petitioner was convicted of aggravated assault, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. 76-5-103 (1999). Subsequent to his conviction, petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal raising the following two issues:
(1) Whether there was insufficient evidence for the jury to convict petitioner of aggravated assault; and
(2) Whether the trial court erred in failing to find that it had lost jurisdiction and failing to remand the case back to juvenile court.
Petitioner's counsel thereafter learned that the trial court was unable to locate the videotape of the second day of trial, and that a transcript of that day would therefore not be available. As a result, petitioner filed a motion for summary reversal in the court of appeals seeking a new trial. The State agreed that such a reversal was appropriate. Ultimately, the court of appeals denied petitioner's motion for summary reversal and remanded the case with instructions to reconstruct the record of the second day of trial.
3 We disagree with the court of appeals' action upon petitioner's motion for summary reversal. A main issue on appeal in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support petitioner's conviction. Resolution of this issue will necessarily involve reviewing the evidence contained in the record. At present, the record does not contain evidence presented on the second day of petitioner's two-day trial. During that day, the State called...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez-Castellanos
...support the action of the trial court. Therefore, we presume the trial court acted correctly...." (citations omitted)); see also State v. Tunzi , 2000 UT 38, ¶ 3, 998 P.2d 816 (recognizing that "attempts to reconstruct major portions of records often prove to be futile because such reconstr......
-
State v. Tunzi
...On certiorari, the supreme court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. See State v. Tunzi, 2000 UT 38, 998 P.2d 816. The supreme court held that reconstruction of the record was inappropriate because "[t]he burdens and futility associated wi......
- Garriott v. W. Med. Assocs., PLLC
-
State v. Rucker, 2003 UT App 450 (Utah App. 12/26/2003)
...addition, the Utah Supreme Court rejected reconstruction as an adequate remedy where a major portion of the record was missing. See State v. Tunzi, 2000 UT 38,¶3, 998 P.2d 816 (rejecting reconstruction where transcript of second day of jury trial was The destruction of records necessary to ......