Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Court orders Rule 23(b) remand in State v. Jones after debate over officer location and adaptive‑headlight evidence
Summary
A Utah Court of Appeals panel said it will remand State v. Jones for a Rule 23(b) hearing after the State conceded one factual issue and counsel disputed whether proffered affidavits about adaptive headlights and driver's‑license hearing findings meet the standard for remand.
A three‑judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals said Wednesday it will remand State v. Jones for a Rule 23(b) hearing after hearing argument over whether proffered affidavits and other evidence meet the proffer standard for ineffective‑assistance claims.
"The state agrees that this case should be remanded on at least 1 of the factual issues before the court in the 23(b) motion," counsel for the State said at the start of argument. The panel noted the State’s concession that Deputy Latham’s precise location during the stop may warrant a remand but spent much of oral argument weighing two other contested proffers: testimony about adaptive headlights and the evidentiary value of a Driver’s License Division (DLD) hearing report.
Why it matters: The scope of any remand could affect multiple…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
