[{"_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",6470035,"mediaKeyId","5780142-3c7fe60ca37d0bc9b856d3799e9b3bfa","parentId",5780142,"title","Appeals court hears argument on whether district judges must formally acknowledge post‑conviction counsel factors in Washington v. State","audioSeconds",2917,"startMs",320000,"endMs",3237000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780142-3c7fe60ca37d0bc9b856d3799e9b3bfa&start=320&end=3237","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780142-3c7fe60ca37d0bc9b856d3799e9b3bfa/thumbnail_320000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6470035/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-argument-on-whether-district-judges-must-formally-acknowledge-postconviction-counsel-factors-in-Washington-v-State","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470035-f322d603439e020cf3a76085dd38a0b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770908328&Signature=HI~JRsScMneIqnDzSK4k8uB1kljhVjGlkDOzgCNClP7aj8-7eSKZ8YyLeqijw0dIWx2nwMuoVIBKQq0fsCbOm~IX6qaIeW4lE4soVR1TWZrxduhrLYme-GtdL-7GqCBdz0xE907UIED3b83d83PQ2pbLZai~tp67UkIHZ8abtqwlXeXYnaxTjUFUoao7cAliNe49p~nk3vrYWvPDTZ31JF8~VJXIY4zVZWNdBSni9lzMpcq-DZz5yiFlgtZAXujqNysGaftF4xpAWgv4VaXDoBq71AeY3KjeG8Zg7EyTJ9p6pHgtdv8skIvHfPrSte2GzY8bEefOQl9XBd2EFlgBSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-09-18T00:00:00Z","article","At a special session of the Utah Court of Appeals held in Southern Utah University's Great Hall, three appellate judges heard oral argument in Washington v. State over whether a district court abused its discretion by failing to acknowledge and engage statutory factors when it denied a post‑conviction request for appointed counsel.

Appellant counsel Vincent Miller told the three‑judge panel the district court “failed to review the filings as a whole” and did not engage the statutory factors the petitioner asked the court to consider, arguing the omission requires reversal or a remand for a hearing on appointment of counsel. The state countered that the petitioner’s argument was buried in a supporting memorandum and that courts should treat post‑conviction petitions as a whole when determining whether a claim was properly presented.

Why it matters: the panel’s decision could clarify how district courts should treat pro se post‑conviction petitions and whether a judge must make an on‑the‑record acknowledgment of discretionary statutory factors (the parties repeatedly discussed the difference between a statute’s “may” language and a mandatory “shall”). If the appeals court finds an abuse of discretion, the matter would be remanded for further district‑court proceedings and possibly a hearing on appointment of counsel.

During argument, judges repeatedly pressed both sides on how to craft a workable rule. At oral argument Miller said the record shows the district court “didn’t even recognize” a basis for appointing counsel and cited precedent the appellant reads to require some engagement with discretionary factors. The state responded that the petition had headings and that one paragraph containing the contested claim was submitted in a memorandum of support rather than in the petition itself; the prosecutor argued courts regularly treat petitions and their supporting memoranda together but that courts are not required to rescue arguments that were not plainly presented in the petition.

The panel questioned whether remand or reversal is appropriate and whether the appellate court could make the factual determination itself from the record. Judges also pressed the parties on which statutory or rule provisions should control; both parties cited state cases (McNair, Sanchez and others) and competing readings of how a “may” clause operates in post‑conviction appointment decisions. Appellant repeatedly emphasized the petitioner’s incarceration, pro se status and asserted competency issues as reasons the district court should have more explicitly engaged the appointment factors.

No opinion was issued from the bench. The court took the matter under advisement and told the parties it will issue a written opinion resolving the appeal.

The oral argument was part of the Utah Court of Appeals’ special session at Southern Utah University; the panel said it will provide a written decision when ready.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20231100 State v. Mike audio file","oneSentenceSummary","At a special session of the Utah Court of Appeals held in Southern Utah University's Great Hall, three appellate judges heard oral argument in Washington v. State over whether a district court abused its discretion by failing to acknowledge and engage statutory factors when it denied a post‑conviction request for appointed counsel.","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},6470032,"Appeals court hears challenge to excited‑utterance, other‑acts and officer testimony in State v. Mike",1890,3586000,5476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5780142-3c7fe60ca37d0bc9b856d3799e9b3bfa&start=3586&end=5476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5780142-3c7fe60ca37d0bc9b856d3799e9b3bfa/thumbnail_3586000.jpg","/articles/6470032/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-excitedutterance-otheracts-and-officer-testimony-in-State-v-Mike","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6470032-d85fed33cbcf19037917185555e275c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770908328&Signature=ODpl0UQSN7v-KaTsy~k4AHR5SOxe17XmhgqsWRoNUOFrh1XEtq5N76VSB0a7lHwYXv3hfl9HgY6Cr~JUAGWN7Yg5IzeHiiVxVvGfKLcNMiIz5r5~tRiclAR~uNefhsFiVITjxnKmyyGhmC-MjoDe647OVc7xPpnaENTJc8xG4hd3x9KjAP-X93~McqBtENLwgLTyA9ORs7AJbncxMTd77N1wNAOJRBAndMAQvqTdIdbAR6DZyaB2z-~oTLMX0egvsnir6LyK3YkyX92qP0-UXbvQZRgn~~9dw2uj3hPEGTd8I9ETT3QDYST046iuZTGqA1zbizJ0uRYOK1ungq55~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Mike at Southern Utah University over multiple evidentiary claims, including whether a neighbor’s statements were admissible as an excited utterance, whether a police officer’s lay testimony and a post‑arrest hypothetical constituted improper propensity or other‑acts evidence, and whether jury unanimity or instructions about where intoxication occurred could have affected the verdict.

Appellant counsel Benjamin Miller argued the neighbor’s account—elicited after the neighbor admitted she waited to observe and then locked the door before asking questions—was not covered by the excited‑utterance exception because the neighbor’s testimony reflected a question‑and‑answer exchange after a short pause and in a familiar setting. “If she sits down and the door is locked and then answers, that starts to kick in reflective thought,” Miller told the panel, asserting the statements had been admitted improperly and were prejudicial.

Miller also challenged the admission of an officer’s lay testimony recounting a defendant’s in‑car hypothetical about assaulting an officer. Defense counsel said that testimony was used in closing to present the defendant as a violent person and therefore functioned as impermissible character or propensity evidence under Rule 404(b). The prosecutor argued the statement was probative of intoxication and that the officer’s testimony was admissible as direct evidence of the defendant’s condition and state of mind; the state additionally argued that any trial‑court evidentiary rulings should be reviewed for abuse of discretion and that the record contains other evidence of intoxication.

Judges repeatedly pressed both sides about practical consequences: whether a limiting instruction would have cured any 404(b) risk, how a prosecutor’s closing argument interacted with the evidentiary record, and whether jurors might have been uncertain whether the alleged intoxication occurred in the home or in the police car (the parties debated whether a police car is legally a “private place” for certain elements and whether that uncertainty could create a unanimity problem). The defense pointed to a split verdict on related charges and to the medical testimony that could not definitively rule in favor of the state’s account, arguing the cumulative effect of the evidentiary rulings was prejudicial.

The court took the appeal under advisement and will issue a written opinion resolving the claims.","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Mike at Southern Utah University over multiple evidentiary claims, including whether a neighbor’s statements were admissible as an excited utterance, whether an officer’s testimony reciting an in‑car hypothetical constituted improper other‑acts evidence, and whether jury instructions/unanimity issues about intoxication could have affected the verdict.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears argument on whether district judges must formally acknowledge post‑conviction counsel factors in Washington v. State

Appeals court hears challenge to excited‑utterance, other‑acts and officer testimony in State v. Mike