Criminal Appeals Attorneys in Salt Lake

This appeal came as a result of the district court’s dismissal of the client’s charge for felony discharge of a firearm after a self-defense justification hearing. The first of its kind, the State appealed this dismissal but the State’s arguments were rejected due to the efforts of our appellate attorneys.

The client was convicted of a misdemeanor and felony sexual offense. Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued on appeal that the trial court made a mistake in limiting defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine the accuser about her sexual history directly related to the arguments posed by the State. These convictions were overturned.

The client was convicted of transferring a stolen vehicle. On appeal, Ms. Visser successfully argued that the trial court mistakenly allowed the client’s trial counsel to remain on the case even though he was a critical witness to the facts. The State conceded the error and the client’s conviction was vacated.

The client pled guilty to two counts in federal court related to his involvement in a drug and money laundering conspiracy. The district court applied a four-level sentence enhancement for a leader of the conspiracy and he appealed. On appeal, Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued that the court clearly erred in enhancing the client’s sentence and the case was remanded for resentencing.

The client was wrongfully convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse without specifying the acts as to each count. Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued for those convictions to be reversed, arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial by failing to ensure the jury was unanimous in their findings. The case was dismissed on remand.

The Utah Highway Patrol and Utah Department of Public Safety seized almost $500,000 from the client and the attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat challenged this seizure. The district court dismissed the petition. On appeal, Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued that although UHP purported to “transfer” the funds to the federal government, the Utah State courts maintained jurisdiction over the funds under Utah’s forfeiture act. The Utah Supreme Court agreed and reversed the dismissal. The case was settled on remand.

The client was convicted of homicide in the death of his wife despite her wound being self-inflicted. The attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered gunshot residue evidence, showing a false narrative on the part of the prosecution, and a declaration from the medical examiner stating he could no longer classify the death as a homicide once presented accurate evidence he had not been provided previously by the prosecution team. The client was acquitted at his retrial in 2017.

The client was convicted in two cases consolidated on appeal of stalking. Ms. Visser was able to have the client’s appeal reinstated and successfully argued on appeal that the client received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial. The convictions were vacated and the cases ultimately dismissed on remand.

Ms. Visser filed a petition for extraordinary relief to the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of a client who was denied the opportunity to reinstate his appeal from a justice court conviction. The Utah Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Ralphs’ appeal should be reinstated because the appeal was not filed through no fault of his own. This case ensures that justice court defendants are able to reinstate their appeals, thereby protecting their right to appeal.

The client was convicted of a non-violent drug conviction in federal court, but received a life sentence. The attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat filed a federal motion for post-conviction relief and relief was granted by the Tenth Circuit on appeal. The client’s life sentence was vacated, he was ultimately resentenced to what essentially amounted to time-served, and has since been released.

The client was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. On appeal, the attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat successfully argued that the trial court committed plain error by applying the wrong version of the statute defining the aggravator and by not instructing the jury to specifically find an aggravator. The court reduced the convictions from first to second degree felonies and the client was resentenced.

The client was convicted of felony sexual abuse of a child. The attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat filed a motion to arrest judgment. The motion was granted and the case ultimately resolved without retrial.

In this case, a teacher, acquitted of criminal charges of sexual abuse of a former student, sought recovery of her attorney fees and costs from the school district for the successful defense. The district court summarily denied her claim for reimbursement, but on appeal, the Utah Supreme Court found that because the allegations arose out of the teacher’s employment,  she was entitled to recover her fees and costs.

One of the co-defendants charged in an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and aiding and abetting the interference with a federally protected activity, appealed a federal conviction. Ms. Taliaferro appealed her client’s sentence and successfully argued for resentencing. Because of the arguments she made, the other two co-defendants (who were represented by different attorneys) also received relief.

In an almost 20-year-old case, an innocent man was convicted of the murder of a child who died from injuries purportedly sustained from "shaken baby syndrome." He was sentenced to a term of five years to life in prison. Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat became involved after the verdict and after the defendant was already serving a prison sentence. After discovering new evidence that showed that the defendant could not have committed the offense, a motion for a new trial was filed. Based upon this new evidence, and prior to the full appeal being heard, Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat secured the defendant's release from prison. The Utah Supreme Court thereafter reversed the conviction. Based upon the newly discovered evidence establishing the defendant's innocence, the State dismissed the case without retrial.

After successfully litigating claims of abuse of process and emotional distress in the district court, the attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat represented the client throughout the appeal process, both in the court of appeals and in the Utah Supreme Court. The case was ultimately remanded for a new trial on the client’s claim for emotional distress and the client was allowed to present additional evidence to support the claim.

Defendants, a husband and wife, were convicted of obstructing justice, accessories to drug distribution, conspiracy, and other offenses. The court afforded them a downward sentencing departure. Both defendants and the government appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the downward sentencing departure. The United States Supreme Court vacated the circuit decision of the circuit court. On remand for resentencing, the court sentenced the defendants to longer sentences and the defendants again appealed. In this appeal, the attorneys of Brown, Bradshaw, & Moffat successfully argued the increased sentence violated the Sixth Amendment.

After the client was convicted of aggravated child abuse under the theory of “shaken baby syndrome”, attorneys Mark Moffat, Jim Bradshaw, and Ann Taliaferro filed a motion to arrest judgment and won her a new trial. The State appealed but our attorneys successfully argued that the State did not have a right under the law existing at the time to appeal this decision. After the State lost its appeal, our attorneys remained on the case and she was ultimately acquitted upon retrial.

The client was convicted of three counts of possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. Mr. Bradshaw and Ms. Taliaferro successfully argued on appeal that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on the elements of the offenses. This resulted in two of the three convictions being overturned.

The client was convicted of assault. Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted. The case was ultimately resolved without a retrial.

Mark Moffat and Ann Taliaferro of Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat successfully argued for the client’s conviction to be vacated based upon a recent United States Supreme Court decision finding that part of the statute creating the offense was overbroad and unconstitutional.

This appeal was taken from an interlocutory petition, after the State was permitted to amend the charges against the client to include a different theory of the offense than what was presented previously at a preliminary hearing. Although the Utah Court of Appeals found the State was allowed to amend the charges, the court also found that the client was entitled to a new preliminary hearing on the State’s new theory.

A case argued by Ken Brown, this case became the seminal and most often cited case in Utah law involving what "prior bad acts" evidence of a defendant is admissible in a criminal trial.

The State sought to use Utah's Subpoena Powers Act to coerce testimony and cooperation from potential witnesses to a murder committed in their home. This case first defined the limitations of the Subpoena Powers Act and limited the State's power to use the act.

The defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. This case became the seminal Utah case challenging the ultimate elimination of a true insanity defense in Utah.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The case was appealed, and the appellate court reversed. Of importance, the Tuttle cases made state law regarding the use and unreliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony at trial.

The defendant was convicted of kidnapping and forcible sexual abuse. This case importantly delineated the Utah rule that consecutive sentences may not be aggregated to exceed 30 years and the exceptions to it.

The defendant was charged with various counts of murder and attempted murder. This case ultimately redefined what is required under Utah law to convict a person for "attempted" murder. As the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, it found there could be no crime of attempted "depraved indifference" murder.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial. The case was appealed and reversed, resulting in a new trial. On retrial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was appealed again, and state law was made regarding the use and unreliability of post-hypnotic testimony at trial. Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court agreed that hypnotically enhanced testimony is inherently unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony required reversal.

The defendant was charged with murder in an apartment in Park City, Utah. Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat presented the defendant's self-defense case to the jury. The first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a hung jury. The case was retried, and the second jury also did not find the defendant guilty of murder, but guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter.