[{"_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",6616479,"mediaKeyId","2852970-4804442a77dc020670120120de42807d","parentId",2852970,"title","Court of Appeals hears challenge to obstruction conviction over missing unanimity instruction and witness unavailability","audioSeconds",2537,"startMs",553000,"endMs",3090000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2852970-4804442a77dc020670120120de42807d&start=553&end=3090","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2852970-4804442a77dc020670120120de42807d/thumbnail_553000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6616479/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-challenge-to-obstruction-conviction-over-missing-unanimity-instruction-and-witness-unavailability","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616479-28c7dfeda6876214c163b85dc75f4fb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171132&Signature=nyW9QT7OpZ6PQ6zqEvg-lNOjzmv2xR7pJmnVQaT07Fekx4rOL9WBU425QB3SbqF5YUqRPuFz-tcwKLtyM5-uX~Q0xgBXXfYm4imbE5XjWn2e92JtmLihYpLUH8iOt4ahClvlCKkxLogrV4sqDoLtmVVNPZt3es-EaToOGa7bqci9VGe8lciinjgTzN7GVhRDfMlIXAY103zQNa2-ej3w~90fHrvUCkonwJgOaIA0pP92w87lP8jSbEddv3QvmXmPVzpILJhRqvHv7XS5w648DZsguxMvlJPx1hHK32GPvGBa5UidLWbUArERbfnmsVgzeQF6So6nJME~FfszpcsrOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-04-02T00:00:00Z","article","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Medina on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a unanimity instruction on an obstruction charge and whether the trial court properly found a key witness unavailable under Utah Rule of Evidence 804.

Appellant counsel Rachel Phillips Zainzkopf told the three-judge panel that trial counsel’s omission was unreasonable because the state presented multiple, discrete acts that could each have supported the obstruction count and the jury was never asked to be unanimous about which act it relied on. \"It was unreasonable for counsel to ask for an instruction that the jury be unanimous as to the specific act,\" Zainzkopf said, urging that omission risked conviction on an undistinguished bundle of acts rather than a single agreed-upon act.

Deputy Salt Lake County attorney Daniel Boyer, arguing for the State, said the defense decision not to request a unanimity instruction was a plausible trial tactic to avoid amplifying multiple alleged acts for jurors. \"Medina's arguments target isolated pieces of the large evidentiary mosaic,\" Boyer said, adding the record contained “ample evidence” supporting the obstruction and murder findings, including the defendant’s inconsistent police statements, texts about removing a bag, and other acts the prosecutor described at trial.

The panel also questioned whether the State met the \"reasonable means\" element of Rule 804 for proving a witness, identified in the record as Robledo, was unavailable after deportation. Zainzkopf argued the State did not sufficiently pursue local investigative avenues — for example, contacting the witness's wife in person — given social-media posts and photographs suggesting he might be in the United States. Boyer responded that the State's efforts — including calls to a rural payphone, paying the phone card used there and preparing to buy a plane ticket — were reasonable in light of evidence that Robledo had been deported to a remote Mexican village.

Judges pressed both sides on the legal standards. They explored whether counsel's failure to request unanimity could be excused as a strategic choice when a prosecutor aggregates multiple acts in closing, how courts assess prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, and whether a trial court's finding that a witness is unavailable warrants appellate deference under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The court cited and discussed precedent the parties relied on, including cases the briefs referenced by name during argument.

After extensive questioning of counsel, the panel told the parties it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion.

The appeal raises two legal questions of broader consequence: when an attorney must request a jury unanimity instruction if a single count rests on several possible acts, and how widely courts should apply the \"reasonable means\" test when a witness has been deported. The Court of Appeals' forthcoming written decision will address those standards and the record-specific factual disputes in Medina's trial.

The panel for this argument was presided over by Michelle Christensen Forrester, with Judges Ryan Tenney and Amy Oliver sitting on the panel. The court heard argument on the record and will issue a written decision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20240371 Mountain Lion Foundation v. Dept. of Natural Res. audio file","oneSentenceSummary","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Medina on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a unanimity instruction on an obstruction charge and whether the trial court properly found a key witness unavailable under Utah Rule of Evidence 804.","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},6616472,"Court of Appeals hears constitutional challenge to Utah law that loosened cougar regulations",2713,4054000,6767000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2852970-4804442a77dc020670120120de42807d&start=4054&end=6767","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2852970-4804442a77dc020670120120de42807d/thumbnail_4054000.jpg","/articles/6616472/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-constitutional-challenge-to-Utah-law-that-loosened-cougar-regulations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6616472-67005aa36444e408bc7d83768fd6b486/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171132&Signature=myFwZRnLHk2BiGt00K3T34oXk90hOoaFhfeFjH05c09tvjG9Ho8wV~ABLlm5n~l7UALi7PkOD6CT3IFKPd6l7txuPtMInzOKGIhl1mOG4O02aGn1msvNin6n-kDR7Y4M~1Rdz3ZbYELUYq2UvM5EcF~ALwHIM~tZV4CruE1k5wMT3jEh3V701x-yHT1XtVX4TSbFuPfUoVS3qPEs0N8sCz9He-tx6SjIHn6DMm5UzuzkNLK~xNI6gOkoLMggtjF8RbnCWBwZmN2RXrGvDzq9sTBugNpLKysm-fe7FBDLAzhEwXhUyVnRznRh5eBKvxcNqWRhQc4E2YqJaTPtuUGzBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a constitutional challenge brought by the Mountain Lion Foundation and Western Wildlife Conservancy against House Bill 469, a 2023 statute the plaintiffs say effectively removed most regulatory protections for cougars.

Appellants' counsel Jessica Bloom told the three-judge panel that the 2020 voter-approved amendment to the Utah Constitution — which recognizes a right to hunt and fish \"forever preserved for the public good\" — imposes a conservation and management obligation on the state. Bloom said HB 469 \"abrogate[s] the executive's authority to regulate cougars,\" removing nearly all references to cougar from the wildlife code and prompting the Utah Wildlife Board to repeal related regulations.

State counsel Sarah Goldberg told the court the challenge should be dismissed for three reasons: lack of third-party or public-interest standing, the text of the amendment does not mandate protection of any particular species, and the question present is a nonjusticiable political question. \"There are three reasons the conservation group should not be able to maintain their challenge,\" Goldberg said.

Judges on the panel repeatedly pressed both counsel on the scope of the constitutional right and the proper procedural path. They asked whether plaintiffs had to exhaust administrative remedies, whether the 2020 amendment's language requires conservation and management by the executive branch, and whether the court would be forced into value-laden ecological judgments that are better left to elected branches.

Bloom argued exhaustion was not required because the agency had no meaningful authority to act after the legislature directed removal of cougar-specific regulations and because board members had declined alternative regulatory approaches at a June 2023 session. On standing, Bloom said the organizations represent Utah members, including hunters, and asserted both associational and public-interest bases for litigation.

Goldberg urged the court instead to focus first on justiciability, asserting that even if plaintiffs could show injury, the remedy sought would put courts in the position of resolving delicate ecological policy tradeoffs. The state also noted recent legislative changes that may affect public-interest standing rules and urged the court to consider jurisdictional questions carefully.

After extended questioning, the panel said it would take the case under advisement and issue a written decision.

The appeal asks the Court of Appeals to interpret the newly enacted constitutional right to hunt and fish and to determine whether a statute that removed most regulatory references to a species is facially or as-applied unconstitutional because it disables the executive's ability to comply with the amendment's conservation and management language. Because the case raises separation-of-powers, standing and political-question issues, the court's written opinion will likely address jurisdiction before reaching the merits.","Two conservation organizations told the Utah Court of Appeals that 2023’s House Bill 469 conflicts with the 2020 constitutional amendment protecting the right to hunt and fish by stripping regulatory authority over cougars from the executive branch; the State urged dismissal on standing and political-question grounds.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court of Appeals hears challenge to obstruction conviction over missing unanimity instruction and witness unavailability

Court of Appeals hears constitutional challenge to Utah law that loosened cougar regulations