Salt Lake City, UT –\u00a0<\/b>The Utah Court of Appeals will hear two oral arguments\u00a0at the University of Utah on Wednesday, April 3, 2024, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Arguments will be held at the SJ Quinney College of Law, 383 South University Street, Salt Lake City, and are open to the public. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge Gregory K. Orme, and Judge Ryan D. Tenney. The panel will hear the following cases:<\/p>\n
State v. Begay, 20230228 \u2013 10:30 a.m.<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n
In 2021, L.Z. reported to police that, 25 years ago, in 1996, when she was 13-years-old, then-22-year-old Sylvestor Begay had raped her. The State filed rape and sexual assault charges against Begay. Soon thereafter, Begay asked the district court to dismiss the case, asserting that the case had been filed too late and was therefore barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court denied the motion and Begay appealed that denial.<\/p>\n
The statute of limitations applicable here states that a valid prosecution may \u201cbe commenced\u2026within four years after\u201d the offense is \u201creport[ed]\u201d to \u201ca law enforcement agency.\u201d The State contends that the statute of limitations did not start to run until 2021 when L.Z. reported the alleged rape to police officers. Begay, on the other hand, contends that the statute of limitations started running way back in 1998, when another girl reported to police that Begay had sexually assaulted her and, in the course of making that report about her own assault, also told police that \u201cthe same things had happened to\u201d L.Z. Thus, the question presented in the case is whether the other girl\u2019s 1998 conversation with police constitutes a \u201creport\u201d of Begay\u2019s alleged offense against L.Z. Begay asserts that it does, but the State contends otherwise, asserting that it was not intended as a report and was not specific enough to qualify as such.<\/p>\n
Hallet v. Tully, 20230364 at 11:00 a.m<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n
Plaintiff suffered a stroke while vacationing in southern Utah. She later brought this medical\u00a0malpractice action, claiming that a misdiagnosis resulted in her early discharge from the hospital\u00a0and led to her stroke, which had disastrous consequences for her. She appeals the trial court\u2019s\u00a0entry of judgment in favor of defendant the close of her case at trial, the court having concluded\u00a0that she did not adduce sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that she had met\u00a0her burden of proof with respect to causation. Relatedly, she challenges the pretrial exclusion of\u00a0one of her expert witnesses and limitations imposed on the testimony of another witness, which\u00a0witness and testimony, she argues, would have\u00a0strengthened\u00a0her causation evidence.\u00a0Defendant, an emergency room physician assistant, contends that the challenged rulings of the\u00a0trial\u00a0court\u00a0were\u00a0correct.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 views about the case.<\/i><\/p>\n
\n
# # #<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Salt Lake City, UT –\u00a0The Utah Court of Appeals will hear two oral arguments\u00a0at the University of Utah on Wednesday, April 3, 2024, beginning at 10:30 a.m. Arguments will be held at the SJ Quinney College of Law, 383 South University Street, Salt Lake City, and are open to the public. The judicial panel will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-928","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-04-17 08:34:36","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=928"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":929,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/928\/revisions\/929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=928"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=928"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legacy.utcourts.gov\/utc\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=928"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}