[{"_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",6470049,"mediaKeyId","5780143-49fc0fa475bd2d00fb1e0d25913030ba","parentId",5780143,"title","Court of Appeals weighs admissibility of neighbor statements and officer testimony in William Paul Mike appeal","audioSeconds",2058,"startMs",3525000,"endMs",5583000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780143-49fc0fa475bd2d00fb1e0d25913030ba&start=3525&end=5583","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780143-49fc0fa475bd2d00fb1e0d25913030ba/thumbnail_3525000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6470049/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-weighs-admissibility-of-neighbor-statements-and-officer-testimony-in-William-Paul-Mike-appeal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470049-54d55ad3afc0d89128af38b0bd8e7995/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087824&Signature=cx6b7fMm3AZs-7mK8~JTAWucFVc6I5KZJ73sX051ZP6O1onie6NkLKYlmmA6KWyW5sZmtqacheGQ5hy8urC5gJc0lDHPwrH2MBhObZKta2sCq0RoAV7AXezV47KVkLvYiAGnT0XNLR9bVZe2kvqLMBa6EIcAoU-gJhtMI-w1McratsOTX0A~B8xwxlzBO8yKCLuaWkm~GFKhxi9nsHYvz8DvZtq2w~N~~G5F~ewV7s4XO9FMNgrVTfGi~TeBZkNj8fRnRhrACfdPVW~1OrVTiFHvSdhvLcmBFfOHM9b2UVmACqFJKiA71lv8~MvW4u5GxuwSjcHgQd5RdoOSdzMgnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-09-18T20:47:00Z","article","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. William Paul Mike at a special session at Southern Utah University, focusing on three evidentiary rulings the defense says tainted the jury’s verdict.

Appellant Benjamin Miller, arguing for William Paul Mike, challenged the admission of a neighbor’s account of events as an “excited utterance” hearsay exception, an officer’s lay‑opinion testimony about statements the defendant allegedly made while detained, and the prosecutor’s use of that testimony in closing to imply assaultive intent. The State defended the district court’s evidentiary rulings as within the trial judge’s discretion.

Argument centered on factual sequence and legal tests. The appellate panel asked whether the neighbor’s narrative was a spontaneous statement made while the declarant was under the stress of the event or, instead, a response given after she reached safety, entered the home and answered questions; the court described the inquiry as highly contextual. The State argued that the declarant remained upset and that the trial court’s ruling fit within the range of reasonable discretion on a mixed factual‑legal inquiry.

Counsel also disputed whether testimony about the defendant’s alleged question on detention — “how much time can I get for assaulting a police officer” — was admissible and whether it was used impermissibly to show propensity in violation of Rule 404(b). The defense argued the officer’s testimony and the prosecutor’s closing argument invited jurors to infer that the defendant had a violent character, while the State said the testimony was relevant to intoxication and was not the only evidence on that point. Defense counsel pointed to a split jury verdict, an expert who said he could not rule out multiple explanations for the victim’s injury, and argued the cumulative effect of the evidentiary rulings was prejudicial.

Judges pressed both sides on whether the jury could have viewed the charged act as occurring in a private dwelling (which bears on unanimity and the charged theory) and whether the prosecutor’s closing remarks clarified the theory and limited the risk of juror confusion. The State argued the prosecutor’s closing framed the relevant act as occurring in a home and urged that any instructional or unanimity concerns did not produce reversible prejudice in this record. The State asked the panel to review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

At the end of the argument, the court told counsel it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion resolving the appeal.

The hearing was held in the Great Hall at Southern Utah University as part of the court’s outreach to campus audiences; the court thanked university staff and public‑safety partners for hosting the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20230553 Washington v. State audio file","oneSentenceSummary","In a special session at Southern Utah University, the Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. William Paul Mike challenging the admission of a neighbor’s statements as an excited utterance, an officer’s lay opinion testimony, and use of other‑acts evidence; the court will issue a written decision after taking the matter under advisement.","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},6470054,"Court of Appeals hears argument in Washington v. State over appointment-of-counsel standard in post‑conviction petitions",2970,282000,3252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780143-49fc0fa475bd2d00fb1e0d25913030ba&start=282&end=3252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780143-49fc0fa475bd2d00fb1e0d25913030ba/thumbnail_282000.jpg","/articles/6470054/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-argument-in-Washington-v-State-over-appointment-of-counsel-standard-in-postconviction-petitions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470054-658d4a8bb40cfb6dbdca78d89f441d5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087824&Signature=O9o7DQWYKuDPweHjMzo7DvUYY6iXTvRFwaO5str-Wpv8pzDE0pFl4Utwj0Ww3SLF4fmw5VjhbExuQMSQ33bF4LIe~FGDPev0akqFE5HFwkzHOPaJFFgzbcgFW6kSmCiVY1o2qDYI399rM-z-vy8m30SacBm0StOXtbQZ0-6SfiXto8ZzgRH-BU3X5KY6iG~YmkVsBcC-GZFpEOX~gNZyGn2s7vTSaL~g9ZzGja8nA5mhBAHhoBUdK8O-bcOhYTsv1700Y10xcIh7dR9h7xheQ8~vscfgP3l8eGkaKeTra4DphvYLeZBtshqV6sBUhXVdpMCrMIkdIyh6jOtsFdkwLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Washington v. State on statutory standards for appointing counsel in post‑conviction proceedings during a special session at Southern Utah University in Cedar City.

The central dispute is whether a district court errs when it denies a post‑conviction petitioner’s request for appointed counsel without expressly acknowledging or engaging the statutory factors that the legislature listed as matters the court “may consider.” Appellant counsel argued that the district court failed to treat the petition as a whole and overlooked a claim that had been included with the petition, while the State countered that the petition must be read in context and that attached memoranda cannot be used to bury new claims.

The question animated extended questioning from the three‑judge panel about how to reconcile the statute’s use of the word “may” with the idea that courts should not issue rulings showing “no engagement whatsoever.” Judges pressed whether a remand for the district court to apply the statutory factors would be the appropriate remedy or whether the appellate court could itself resolve the claim on the record. Counsel for the appellant said the record contains enough factual material for the court to remand for a proper analysis, and that a remand to allow the district court to apply the factors would be consistent with recent appellate precedent cited by the appellant.

Argument also turned on procedural presentation: the State said petitioners must raise claims in the petition itself rather than in a supporting memorandum, while the appellant responded that courts should read pro se filings with some flexibility and that the petition plus its attached memorandum together put the post‑conviction claims before the court. Both sides discussed Utah and federal precedent about how strictly to construe pro se filings and when courts should presume they considered relevant factors.

A number of published decisions and doctrinal points were invoked by counsel during argument, including references to case law the parties offered as guidance on when a court’s silence or minimal explanation constitutes reversible error. The panel repeatedly asked how an opinion should instruct district judges to proceed in light of a statutory list of non‑mandatory factors — whether judges must at least acknowledge statutory factors on the record or whether silence is legally permissible.

At the close of oral argument, the court said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion resolving the matter.

The hearing was part of the court’s outreach session at Southern Utah University; the panel thanked university staff and others who helped host the proceedings. The court did not announce a decision at the hearing; the written opinion will resolve whether the district court’s handling of the appointment‑of‑counsel question was legally adequate or whether further proceedings are required.","At a special session at Southern Utah University, the Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Washington v. State about whether a district court must formally acknowledge statutory factors when denying appointed counsel in post‑conviction proceedings; the court took the matter under advisement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court of Appeals weighs admissibility of neighbor statements and officer testimony in William Paul Mike appeal

Court of Appeals hears argument in Washington v. State over appointment-of-counsel standard in post‑conviction petitions