State v. Black
| Decision Date | 17 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 20130758.,20130758. |
| Citation | 2015 UT 54,355 P.3d 981 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Terry BLACK, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
355 P.3d 981
2015 UT 54
STATE of Utah, Appellee
v.
Terry BLACK, Appellant.
No. 20130758.
Supreme Court of Utah.
July 17, 2015.
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Ryan D. Tenney, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for appellee.
Joan C. Watt, McCaye Christianson, Patrick W. Corum, Jason M. Poppleton,
Wojciech S. Nitecki, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Justice DURHAM authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice LEE, Justice PARRISH, and Judge ORME joined. Due to his retirement, Justice NEHRING does not participate herein; Court Of Appeals Judge GREGORY K. ORME sat. Justice DENO G. HIMONAS became a member of the Court on February 13, 2015, after oral argument in this matter, and accordingly did not participate.
Justice DURHAM, opinion of the Court:
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 This case presents two questions: (1) whether a district court judge created an appearance of bias requiring his disqualification from the case and (2) whether a district court judge may act as both a magistrate and a judge in the same criminal case. The first question became moot when the judge was transferred to a different court docket, causing this case to be reassigned during the pendency of this appeal. We therefore do not resolve it. As to the second question, we hold that a district court judge retains the authority to act as a judge after sitting as a magistrate in a case.
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 The State charged Terry Black with aggravated murder, child kidnapping, and rape of a child. The case was assigned to Judge Kouris.
¶ 3 Judge Kouris scheduled a preliminary hearing for a date more than six months away in order to give the State time to produce requested discovery. Mr. Black later filed a motion to continue the preliminary hearing in order to obtain additional discovery. The court denied this request.
¶ 4 Mr. Black filed a renewed motion to continue the preliminary hearing seventeen days prior to its scheduled date. Defense counsel then filed a petition to evaluate Mr. Black's competency to stand trial three days later. In response, the State requested a hearing to determine the sufficiency of Mr. Black's competency petition.
¶ 5 At the hearing to determine the sufficiency of the competency petition, the district court asked some pointed questions about why defense counsel had waited until two weeks before the preliminary hearing to raise the issue of competency. Defense counsel maintained they had initial concerns about Mr. Black's competency to stand trial but these concerns became more pronounced as the preliminary hearing approached. Ultimately, the court granted defense counsel's request for a competency evaluation and stayed all other proceedings. Judge Kouris was scheduled to preside over Mr. Black's competency evaluation.
¶ 6 After this hearing, Mr. Black filed a motion to transfer adjudication of the competency petition to another judge. He argued that his competency evaluation must be adjudicated by a different district court judge because Judge Kouris had sat as magistrate in the case. The presiding judge of the Third District Court denied Mr. Black's motion to transfer. He concluded that Judge Kouris, as a district court judge, was authorized to hear and adjudicate all proceedings of a criminal case.
¶ 7 Mr. Black then filed a motion to disqualify Judge Kouris. In that motion, Mr. Black alleged that statements made by the judge during the hearing to determine the sufficiency of the competency petition created an appearance of bias. The associate presiding judge of the Third District Court concluded that the judge's tone and comments during the hearing did not approach the level necessary for disqualification and denied Mr. Black's motion.
¶ 8 This court granted Mr. Black's petition for interlocutory review of the orders denying these two motions.
ANALYSIS
I. THE DISQUALIFICATION ISSUE IS MOOT
¶ 9 Mr. Black argues that the associate presiding judge of the Third District Court erred when he declined to disqualify
Judge Kouris. After oral argument was held in this appeal, however, the State notified this court that Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widdison v. State
...issues she asks us to address are likely to evade review, but none of them are sufficient to meet her burden of persuasion.14 See State v. Black , 2015 UT 54, ¶ 12, 355 P.3d 981 (suggesting the burden is on the party seeking the exception to show the elements of the exception). ¶58 Widdison......
-
State v. Legg
...an issue that becomes moot” while the appeal is pending, where “circumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated.” State v. Black , 2015 UT 54, ¶ 10, 355 P.3d 981 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, if it is demonstrated that a case is moot, it “must be dismisse......
-
State v. Legg
...1994) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We generally won't decide an issue that becomes moot while on appeal. State v. Black , 2015 UT 54, ¶ 10, 355 P.3d 981 ("An issue becomes moot if during the pendency of the appeal circumstances change so that the controversy is eli......
-
Zazzetti v. Prestige Senior Living Ctr. LLC
...conclude that this issue has been rendered moot by the jury's verdict, we need not reach the merits of Zazzetti's argument. See State v. Black , 2015 UT 54, ¶ 10, 355 P.3d 981 ("Courts generally will not resolve an issue that becomes moot.").ANALYSIS¶18 In our first section, we address the ......