[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6620527,"mediaKeyId","2807520-d0a0acbd5a61f26f3ac859d77d86e7e4","parentId",2807520,"title","Appeals court hears dispute over bail modification, jurisdiction and whether judge found ‘substantial danger’ in Stubbs case","audioSeconds",2498,"startMs",4326000,"endMs",6824000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2807520-d0a0acbd5a61f26f3ac859d77d86e7e4&start=4326&end=6824","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2807520-d0a0acbd5a61f26f3ac859d77d86e7e4/thumbnail_4326000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620527/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-dispute-over-bail-modification-jurisdiction-and-whether-judge-found-substantial-danger-in-Stubbs-case","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620527-e350ea19f1d1e741cc5e624d7f5a4169/orig.mp4?Expires=1771096237&Signature=oK4lkSloS7YinH9VRM5Rr2lQlABepET-2FCXSZ6BQgWQ3cTeF8vpnFhn6wxU45QvwInynG5Kr0zGRWcbyymf1xIXkLj2a747GyDes2H7e9~Oejer-ZFsFmi~mWtwLNaa5-MX8~eItoe7PeVFbujvpaQAXru4iM5jLn0gRY4hXZtnIUgHk34NHkustIQhGchMs1ew0dbSzqc5G-GynqMDnQ543dPqA~MOXcH8~SK~SqUsBRICaFDqOok0jO6RGjR8cQLsKtCHxZHMnlL0S0l-kCvkjCs9qwzGzD5QtH9nBa-XiTEXrc0k4SsWxGjuw7OFJqQusEdSKkzHFY4jt5EKZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-03-12T00:00:00Z","article","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in an expedited bail appeal by the defendant identified as Mr. Stubbs over whether the district court properly denied pretrial release and whether this court has jurisdiction to review the modification order.

Appellant counsel Wendy Brown argued the district court’s order did not include the statutory language required by Utah’s bail statute — specifically the phrase “clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger” — and that the court failed to consider available conditions of release before concluding detention was necessary. Brown asked the court to reverse and remand for a bail determination that applies the statute’s prescribed standard and that expressly weighs conditions of release.

Aubrey Bisbee, arguing for the state, urged dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, affirmation. Bisbee said the modification statute requires a showing of a material change in circumstances before the district court reconsiders bail, that this appeal differs procedurally from Gross, and that the district court explicitly found no material change in circumstances. The state told the panel the written record contains an order and a January filing that the state submitted to the court for completeness; Bisbee said the district court also made findings addressing delay and that the denial should be affirmed.

Why it matters: Brown framed the appeal as a narrow statutory and procedural error: bail is a constitutional right that the legislature limited in specific, tightly worded circumstances, and the court must make a distinct finding of “substantial danger” by “clear and convincing evidence” before denying that right. The state contends this appeal either is not properly before the Court of Appeals under the expedited bail appeal statute or, if it is, the district court’s overall findings are sufficient.

Key points from argument

- “Magic words” and statutory burden: Brown told the court the statute’s phrases are not optional: “The language is substantial danger. ... And more than that, the statute isn't just substantial danger. It's clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger. Clear and convincing evidence doesn't appear in the court’s order either.” Judges asked whether those exact words are required on the record or whether the substantive standard could be found by implication from the court’s reasoning.

- Consideration of conditions of release: Brown said the district court did not meaningfully consider available conditions of release and instead deferred to the state, noting the court told counsel, “If you can come up with a stipulation, I don't need another hearing. Just get that before me,” which Brown said shows the judge had not evaluated conditions independently.

- Jurisdiction and subsequent orders: The state argued Gross and related precedent permit review of subsequent detention orders but emphasized distinctions: the Gross modification followed an initial appeal and new evidence at a preliminary hearing; here, the state contends no material change justified a different result and that a January docket entry does not create a new appealable order.

- Delay and material‑change argument: The court pressed both sides on whether the passage of time (multiple years detained) satisfied the material‑change threshold. Brown said compliance with juvenile‑court conditions and a documented lack of disciplinary incidents in custody supported her argument that circumstances had changed; the state disputed the evidence’s effect on the statutory analysis.

Outcome at argument: The panel took the matter under advisement. No appellate ruling was announced from the bench.

What to watch for

The appeals court must decide (1) whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this modification appeal under the expedited bail appeal statute, (2) whether the district court made the statutorily required finding of “clear and convincing evidence” of a “substantial danger,” and (3) whether the trial court adequately considered conditions of pretrial release. A ruling for the appellant would require the district court to re‑evaluate bail under the statute; a ruling for the state would leave detention in place.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20241146 State v. Stubbs audio file","oneSentenceSummary","The panel considered whether the district court made the statutorily required finding of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of a ‘substantial danger’ before denying release and whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the modification order.","taxTitle","Utah Court of Appeals Live Stream, Utah Appellate Court, Utah Judicial Branch, Utah","taxId",76036,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6620531,"Appeals court hears arguments over blurred hotel video, ineffective‑assistance and Robbins challenge in State v. Vargas",3353,868000,4221000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2807520-d0a0acbd5a61f26f3ac859d77d86e7e4&start=868&end=4221","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2807520-d0a0acbd5a61f26f3ac859d77d86e7e4/thumbnail_868000.jpg","/articles/6620531/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-arguments-over-blurred-hotel-video-ineffectiveassistance-and-Robbins-challenge-in-State-v-Vargas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620531-41cbc7c225703725f71367dc6df3c8f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771096237&Signature=ipDhGAFVh4Lu4vQ0EkzyMeR51sNRlL7HIhnievzrudEsz3113ny7S7JBXfrSlq8zJLiJ2Tt~0cuTwVZ-IvBwQN6KJRKnkDBRewWqJSNRE0rWKvoYU2C2s8OX1-3NeNRu~oofxjlLt6qPAKmdjjdI3YWO-nn4--5wogb6k7dUIL48aWN9va7IkZagjORw6qCcId3Qi-GBxkT-Qlt6DNvQ1wjiNL3jDowFRXGasytIGRU5AZNkR9-iN75DpFysnzgaI0EWGJgs9Gwq4hUgf8BbxWuej2Vqkdisb793NYFY6tP-ZVWz44Pf1u-pMP7bqgMlGcsd2j-Jlcnlsykj5OFiig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Vargas on whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by declining to offer an unblurred hotel‑room video to the jury and whether the victim’s testimony was so inherently improbable that the appellate court should remove it from the evidentiary picture under Robbins.

The case drew focused questioning from the panel, which included Judge Ryan Tenney (presiding), Judge Oliver and Judge John Luthy. Appellant counsel Matt Howell said the unblurred video would have shown the alleged victim “stark naked” and that seeing her unedited torso and movements would have “had a real impact on [the jury’s] decision.” Howell argued the video could have undermined the sole witness’s credibility and that, under Salazar, when a case “turns on” one witness, defense counsel has an obligation to present evidence that impeaches that witness.

Natalie Edmondson, arguing for the state, told the court the prosecutor’s office had offered a censored version to preserve the victim’s privacy and dignity and that the unblurred footage “would risk offending the jury” and might inflame juror emotions. Edmondson also said the record shows the victim testified she did not know the video was being recorded and that other evidence — including testimony about intoxication and hotel surveillance showing stumbling — corroborated the state’s claim that the victim lacked capacity to consent.

Why it matters: Howell’s ineffective‑assistance claim focuses on defense counsel’s strategic choice not to admit an uncensored video that the defense says undermined the victim’s testimony. The Robbins argument asks a separate question: whether the alleged victim’s testimony is so inconsistent and uncorroborated that it must be excluded on appellate review, leaving insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction.

Key points from argument

- Video and credibility: Howell told the court the unblurred video would have made visible three things he said the blurred footage obscured: (1) that the victim was “stark naked,” (2) that her clothes were out of her line of sight as she walked from the bathroom, and (3) that Vargas was performing a sexual act. Judge Oliver repeatedly questioned whether showing nudity would necessarily help the defense and asked whether admitting the unblurred footage risked “inflam[ing] the jury.” Howell conceded the unblurred footage carried risk but said Salazar required counsel to present evidence that undermined the sole witness’s credibility.

- Blurring and perception: Counsel for the state said the censored footage conveys that the subject was unclothed and that the victim testified she did not know the video was taken. Edmondson argued the blurred video “shows that it’s skin underneath” and emphasized the state’s efforts to protect the victim’s privacy.

- Robbins claim (inherent improbability): Howell asked the court to apply Robbins and exclude the victim’s testimony as inherently improbable because of “material inconsistencies,” including differing accounts of whether she was clothed on waking and whether she was carried or walked down the hallway. The judges discussed the line between ordinary credibility questions for juries and the narrow appellate Robbins standard that removes testimony only when reasonable minds must entertain a reasonable doubt.

- Corroboration and timing: Edmondson pointed to bartender testimony, receipts, hallway surveillance showing stumbling and a toxicology witness as evidence that the victim’s intoxication was corroborated. Howell countered that much of that evidence post‑dated the alleged sexual assault and that the remaining corroboration was insufficient as a matter of law under Robbins.

Outcome at argument: The court took the case under advisement and said it would issue an opinion in due course. No interim ruling was made from the bench.

What the record shows and what remains unresolved

The transcript shows extended back‑and‑forth about whether the unblurred video would have helped or hurt the defense and whether showing nudity to the jury is a permissible impeachment tactic or merely emotional shock value. The panel repeatedly pressed both sides on the extent to which the blurred video already communicates the key facts (skin tone, movement across the room) and on whether the unblurred footage risked prejudice that could outweigh probative value.

Next steps

The Court of Appeals will issue a written opinion resolving the ineffective‑assistance claim and the Robbins sufficiency argument. The court’s ruling will determine whether Vargas’s conviction stands, whether the Robbins argument requires exclusion of the victim’s testimony for sufficiency review, or whether a new trial or other relief is warranted.

","The Utah Court of Appeals heard competing arguments in the appeal of State v. Vargas about trial counsel’s decision not to offer an unblurred hotel‑room video and whether the alleged victim’s testimony is so inconsistent that Robbins review requires reversal.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears dispute over bail modification, jurisdiction and whether judge found ‘substantial danger’ in Stubbs case

Appeals court hears arguments over blurred hotel video, ineffective‑assistance and Robbins challenge in State v. Vargas