Author: Utah Courts

Salt Lake City, Utah —The Utah State Courts today announced that public parking in the underground garage at the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse will be discontinued effective January 1st, 2026.

This change is part of an ongoing effort to enhance courthouse safety and security while maintaining convenient access for court users, jurors, attorneys, and the public.

“The Matheson Courthouse is one of the busiest judicial facilities in the state,” said Chris Palmer, Director of Security for the Utah State Courts. “This adjustment aligns with national security standards and is a proactive measure to better protect the public and court employees while ensuring continued access through nearby parking options.”

Members of the public visiting the courthouse are encouraged to use public transit, including the TRAX Courthouse Station, which is located directly adjacent to the courthouse, and multiple UTA bus routes that serve the surrounding area. Several public parking facilities within one block of the courthouse are also available, including:

·                 500 South Surface Lot

·                 WaFed Building Garage (405 S. Main Street)

·                 175 East 400 South Lot

·                 Salt Lake City metered street parking

This decision follows a multi-agency review involving the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Utah State Courts Security, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. The review considered operational efficiency, national security guidance, and the availability of alternative parking resources in downtown Salt Lake City.

Parking will continue to be available for jurors. Public communication materials, including signage and advance notifications, will be issued ahead of the transition.

“This is a careful, balanced decision,” Palmer added. “Public access remains a top priority. The goal is to ensure that access occurs in a way that maximizes safety for everyone in the courthouse”.

Updated maps, parking information, and answers to frequently asked questions will be posted at www.utcourts.gov and displayed on-site prior to the effective date.

# # #

Salt Lake City, Utah — In response to multiple requests for comment regarding Judge Dianna Gibson’s ruling in the Utah Women Voters v. Utah State Legislature redistricting case, the Utah Judiciary issues the following statement:

Though the Utah Judiciary does not comment on the specifics of any threats made toward judges or court employees, we acknowledge that such incidents have recently occurred. We call on everyone to approach concerns involving the courts with civility, respect, and constructive dialogue.

Threats of violence against judges or court personnel are unacceptable, dangerous, and may violate state or federal law. Any conduct aimed at causing fear for a ruling or undermining the safe operation of the justice system strikes at the heart of the rule of law. Such actions endanger not only the individuals targeted but the functioning of the justice system itself.

Judges have a constitutional duty to apply the law to the facts before them, independent of external pressures. That independence is essential to preserving the separation of powers and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially.

When parties disagree with a judicial ruling, the appropriate and lawful avenue for addressing those concerns is the established appellate process. Utah’s courts provide a structured and transparent system for reviewing decisions and correcting potential errors, reinforcing public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.

We encourage all Utahns to stand with the Judiciary in protecting the safety of our judges and employees and protecting the fair and impartial administration of justice.

# # #

Tooele County, Utah—Applications are being accepted for a justice court judge position that will  serve Tooele County, Utah. The successful candidate will replace Judge John M. Dow who will retire in January. 

To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Tooele County, candidates must be at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the United States. In addition, applicants must be a resident of Tooele County or an adjacent county either upon appointment or before taking the bench.  

Information on judicial retention and performance evaluation is posted on the Utah State Court’s website at www.utcourts.gov under employment opportunities. An application for judicial office must be completed online at justicecourtvacancies.utah.gov before the deadline. The salary range for the position is $153,475 to $197,325 per year and includes benefits. For additional information  

about working for Tooele County, email Matthew Flygare, the Human Resources Director for Tooele County, at matthew.flygare@tooeleco.gov or call him at (435) 843-3157. 

The deadline for applications is Friday, December 12, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. Applications cannot be submitted after the deadline. For questions about the justice courts or the process for filling this position, email Jim Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at jamesp@utcourts.gov.  

Utah law requires the Tooele County Justice Court Nominating Commission to submit at least three  nominees to Andy Welch, Tooele County Manager, within 45 days of its first meeting. Mr. Welch will then have 30 days in which to make a selection. His selection must then be ratified by the Tooele County Council and certified by the Utah Judicial Council.

# # #  

Salt Lake City, UT – The Utah Court of Appeals will hold a special oral argument session at Utah Tech University in St. George on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The session, which is open to the public, will take place in the Zion Room of the Holland Centennial Commons & Library Building, located at 225 S University Ave, 225 S 700 E. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge Ryan D. Tenney, and Judge Amy J. Oliver. The panel will hear the following cases:

 Musser v. Apple Valley 20241334 – 10:00 a.m.

In November 2021, Daniel N. Musser entered into an agreement with William Dale Beddo, the mayor of Apple Valley, for employment as chief of the police and fire departments. Musser and Beddo signed the contract, and Musser began working in his role. Concerns were raised that the Apple Valley Town Council had been unable to confirm the appointment of Musser, as required pursuant to Utah Code and Apple Valley Policies and Procedures. In December, Beddo approached the Town Council with a resolution to confirm Musser’s appointment. Only three of the five council members participated in the vote—two voting for Musser’s appointment and one voting against it—despite Apple Valley’s requirement that a majority of the Town Council must vote in the affirmative for a motion to be adopted. In January 2022, Diana Mason Walters took office as the new mayor, and sent Musser a letter terminating his employment.

Musser sued Apple Valley, Walters, and the members of the Town Council. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Musser’s appointment was not approved, (2) the employment contract was invalid because it was executed in violation of the statute requiring the Town Council to confirm Musser’s appointment, (3) the employment contract was void because it offended public policy by not being executed with the advice and consent of the Town Council, and (4) Musser was properly terminated because his invalid employment contract meant that he was never entitled to employment with Apple Valley or the benefits the contract provided. Musser now appeals the grant of summary judgment.

 PCVI v. Brown, Brown, and Premsrirut 20241227 – 10:45 a.m.

Entrepreneur Anthony Hsieh and his company PCVI signed an engagement letter with a Nevada law firm, enabling the firm to oversee the legal affairs of Hsieh, PCVI, and any of their “respective affiliates.” The engagement letter contained several forum-selection clauses that restricted any litigation resulting from the firm’s representation to be commenced and maintained in the state of Nevada.

One of the lawyers at the firm directed and oversaw the purchase of a ranch resort in Utah for $25 million, all in Hsieh’s name. Unbeknownst to the lawyer, the ranch’s water rights had been subject to litigation for over forty years and, as a result, the ranch was valued nearly $7 million less than what Hsieh paid for it. After Hsieh’s death, his father was appointed as the administrator of Hsieh’s estate, which included PCVI and the ranch. PCVI and the ranch subsequently sued the lawyer and the firm in Utah court for legal malpractice, arguing, among other things, that Hsieh was incapacitated at the time he signed the engagement letter and that the lawyer was negligent in her purchase of the ranch. The firm responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue and the district court granted that motion.

            PCVI and the ranch now appeal, arguing that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss for the following reasons: (1) the forum-selection clauses of the engagement letter did not apply to the Utah ranch, (2) Hsieh was incapacitated at the time of signing the engagement letter, and (3) enforcing the engagement letter’s forum-selection clauses violated Utah public policy by allowing a Nevada-licensed lawyer to practice in Utah. The lawyer and the firm refute these claims, arguing instead that (1) the forum-selection clauses applied to the ranch as an “affiliate” of PCVI, (2) PCVI failed to show that Hsieh was incapacitated at the time of the signing, and (3) the enforcement of the clauses did not violate Utah public policy.

Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges’ views about the case.

# # #

Salt Lake City, UT – The Utah Court of Appeals will hold a special oral argument session at Utah State University in Logan on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The session, which is open to the public, will take place in the Russell/Wanlass Performance Hall, located at 4030 Old Main Hill. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge David N. Mortensen, and Judge John D. Luthy. The panel will hear the following cases:

State v. Qayum, 20240207 – 10:00 a.m.

Qayum began chatting with “Mae” through an online dating app. But Mae was not real: her persona was created by an undercover agent, and it featured a photograph of an 18-year-old model and a listed age of “18.” Qayum offered to pay Mae for “cuddling, making out, maybe sex.” Mae agreed, but she asked if it was a problem that she was only 13 years old. Qayum responded, “you’re very young we can do it but we have to be very careful.” Eventually, the two arranged a time to meet, and when Qayum arrived at the meeting location, he was arrested. A detective informed him of his Miranda rights and asked, “Do you understand everything?” Qayum responded, “I have to tell my attorney to talk to you and answer my question.” The detective followed, “So, you understand all that?” Qayum said, “Yeah.” Qayum then proceeded to answer the detective’s questions and, during the interview, he told the detective that he was expecting to have sex with Mae and that if Mae had wanted to, it “could have happened.”

Qayum was charged with enticing a minor. Before trial, Qayum asked the court to dismiss the case on two grounds: that (1) the State failed to preserve evidence (including the original online profile and photograph) that he claimed would have been helpful to the defense, and (2) Qayum needed but could not present the testimony of the person whose photo appeared on the profile, and who the State claimed was a “confidential informant.” Qayum also asked the court to suppress the statements he made during his police interview, arguing that he had requested a lawyer and therefore the interview should have terminated. The district court denied all three motions. Following trial, the jury convicted Qayum of enticing a minor.

On appeal, Qayum raises three arguments. First, he asserts that the district court should have dismissed the case on the ground that the police “entrapped” him. Second, he argues that the court erred when it denied his two motions to dismiss, described above. And third, he asserts that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress, described above. The State opposes Qayum’s arguments.

State v. Devore, 20240393 at 10:45 a.m

In 2018, Devore entered another man’s home, found that man with his (Devore’s) ex-wife, and punched the man in the face. Devore later pled guilty to aggravated burglary. As part of his plea, Devore acknowledged that he might be ordered to pay restitution related to the burglary and the associated assault. In July 2020, Devore was sentenced to sixty days of jail time and forty-eight months probation. In 2021, the Utah Office for Victims of Crime requested $360 in restitution for the other man’s medical expenses. Then in November 2023, after the other man had facial surgery, the State filed a motion for an additional $30,000 in restitution. A final order of restitution awarding the requested $30,000 was entered in 2024.

On appeal, Devore argues that the State’s request for additional restitution was untimely and, thus, prohibited by the version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act in effect at the time of sentencing and by the amended version of that Act that was in effect when the State submitted its request for additional restitution. Devore’s trial attorney did not object to the order for additional restitution on the basis that the request was untimely. On appeal, Devore contends that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the order on that basis amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court’s issuance of the order amounted to plain error. Devore also argues–based on evidence that the other man had two facial injuries prior to the altercation during the burglary–that the trial court erroneously determined that Devore’s actions were what caused the other man to need a $30,000 facial surgery.

Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges’ views about the case.

# # #

Salt Lake City, UT – The Utah Court of Appeals will hold a special oral argument session at Utah State University in Logan on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The session, which is open to the public, will take place in the Russell/Wanlass Performance Hall, located at 4030 Old Main Hill. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge David N. Mortensen, and Judge John D. Luthy. The panel will hear the following cases:

State v. Qayum, 20240207 – 10:00 a.m.

Defendant and his sister took a break from taking care of their mother. They went to a local bar and had several drinks, becoming intoxicated. Around two in the morning, and after having returned to their mother’s home, Sister sustained significant injuries. Sister claimed that the Defendant beat her up, then dragged her into the shower to wash her off. Defendant claimed that Sister, whose blood alcohol level tested at .286, had taken a nasty fall and that he helped her into the shower to wash off the blood. Sister went to a friend’s house for help, and the friend’s husband called the police. The police came and interviewed both Sister and Defendant, ultimately arresting Defendant and transporting him to jail. Meanwhile, Sister was taken to the ER by ambulance. Defendant faced a number of charges. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of domestic violence assault, obstructing justice, and intoxication.

On appeal, Defendant raises a number of issues. First, he argues that one of the officer’s testimony that Defendant asked about the penalty for assaulting a police officer should not have been permitted. Second, Defendant contends that an officer who testified that he did not believe Sister’s injuries could have been caused by falling should not have been permitted because the officer was not qualified to render that opinion. Third, Defendant argues that the court erred in allowing the friend to repeat the story that Sister told her soon after the incident. This was hearsay, which is not usually permitted, but the trial court permitted it under the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule. Finally, Defendant claims his trial counsel provided him constitutionally deficient assistance.

The State refutes Defendant’s arguments. It emphasizes that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, a standard that recognizes the important role of trial courts in managing the cases before them. And it argues that counsel’s performance was not deficient and, even if it was, that Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by it, meaning that he would have been convicted anyway.

State v. Devore, 20240393 at 10:45 a.m

In 2018, Devore entered another man’s home, found that man with his (Devore’s) ex-wife, and punched the man in the face. Devore later pled guilty to aggravated burglary. As part of his plea, Devore acknowledged that he might be ordered to pay restitution related to the burglary and the associated assault. In July 2020, Devore was sentenced to sixty days of jail time and forty-eight months probation. In 2021, the Utah Office for Victims of Crime requested $360 in restitution for the other man’s medical expenses. Then in November 2023, after the other man had facial surgery, the State filed a motion for an additional $30,000 in restitution. A final order of restitution awarding the requested $30,000 was entered in 2024.

On appeal, Devore argues that the State’s request for additional restitution was untimely and, thus, prohibited by the version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act in effect at the time of sentencing and by the amended version of that Act that was in effect when the State submitted its request for additional restitution. Devore’s trial attorney did not object to the order for additional restitution on the basis that the request was untimely. On appeal, Devore contends that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the order on that basis amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court’s issuance of the order amounted to plain error. Devore also argues–based on evidence that the other man had two facial injuries prior to the altercation during the burglary–that the trial court erroneously determined that Devore’s actions were what caused the other man to need a $30,000 facial surgery.

Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges’ views about the case.

# # #

Logan, Utah — The next regularly scheduled meeting of Utah’s grand jury panel of judges will be on Thursday, October 16, 2025, at the Logan 1st District Courthouse, located at 135 N 100 W, Logan, UT 84321.¹

The purpose of the meeting is to hear testimony, if any, to determine whether a grand jury should be summoned based upon evidence of criminal activity. The panel of judges will hear, in secret, individuals claiming information that justifies calling a grand jury. Individuals appearing before the panel of judges will be placed under oath. An individual who testifies must be prepared to provide evidence to support a claim that justifies calling a grand jury. The Attorney General, a county attorney, district attorney, or special prosecutor appointed under U.C.A. section 77-10a-1 can also present evidence of criminal activity. Controversies between individual parties, civil matters, and matters that are subject to criminal appeal will not be considered.

Those wanting to testify before the panel of judges should contact Keri Sargent, Deputy District Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, at (801) 238-7547 by Monday, October 6, 2025, at noon, to schedule an appointment and arrange to receive further specific instructions. Any individual needing special accommodation during the hearing must notify panel staff at least three business days prior to the hearing. If no appointments are scheduled by the appointed time, the meeting will be canceled without further notice.

The current members of the grand jury panel of judges are: Supervising Judge Elizabeth Hruby-Mills, 3rd District Court; Judge Roger Griffin, 4th District Court; Judge Blaine Rawson, 2nd District Court; Judge Matthew Bell, 5th District Court; and Senior Judge Paul Parker, 3rd District Court. Additional information regarding the grand jury panel of judges is available at the Utah Court’s website² or in the Utah Code.³

1 Utah’s grand jury statute requires a panel of judges selected from throughout the state to hold a hearing in each judicial district every three years.

2 Grand Jury Schedule

3 77-10a-2. Panel of judges — Appointment — Membership — Ordering of grand jury

# # #

Tremonton, Utah—The Tremonton Judicial Nominating Commission has selected three nominees for a justice court judge position that will serve Tremonton, Utah. The final candidate will replace Judge Kevin Christensen who resigned in March.

Following is an alphabetical listing of the nominees followed by place of employment and city of residence:

∙ Michael E. Christiansen, J.D., Attorney at Law, resident of Perry,

∙ Dustin D. Ericson, J.D., Attorney at Law, resident of North Logan, and

∙ Travis Marker, J.D., Attorney at Law, resident of North Ogden.

A comment period will be held through September 1, 2025. Once application materials are provided to Lyle Holmgren, the Tremonton City Mayor, he will have 30 days to make a final selection. His selection must then be ratified by the Tremonton City Council. To submit written comments about any of the candidates, please email James Peters, Justice Court Administrator, at jamesp@utcourts.gov.

# # #

Salt Lake City, Utah – The Third District Court seeks public comments in relation to the retention of Commissioner Russell Minas.  Anyone wishing to make a comment regarding the potential retention of Commissioner Russell Minas may do so by sending an email to markp@utcourts.gov.  All comments must be submitted within 10 days of this post.

The Third District Court also seeks public comments in relation to the retention of Commissioner Michelle Blomquist.  Anyone wishing to make a comment regarding the potential retention of Commissioner Michelle Blomquist may do so by sending an email to markp@utcourts.gov.  All comments must be submitted within 10 days of this post.

# # #