D.V. v. State
2011 UT App 241
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- D.V. was placed in interim DCFS custody by a 2006 juvenile court order.
- In 2009, D.V. ran away from his DCFS foster placement, prompting a contempt petition.
- The State offered hearsay testimony from DCFS caseworker and a counselor regarding statements by D.V.’s mother, grandmother, and foster mother.
- The juvenile court admitted the hearsay based on Utah Rule of Evidence 1101(b)(4) and issued an oral contempt finding.
- On appeal, D.V. challenges both the admissibility of the hearsay and the sufficiency of the evidence to prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reverses the contempt finding on sufficiency grounds but upholds preservation-related aspects of the hearsay issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay admission under Rule 1101 is preserved for appeal? | D.V. argues lack of preservation for 1101. | State contends defendant did raise the issue below. | Not preserved; appellees affirm the ruling on preservation. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence D.V. knew violating order was contempt? | D.V. argues lack of explicit notice in order and records. | State asserts repeated notices and youthfulness show knowledge. | Insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; reverse contempt finding. |
| Was the written order sufficiently definite to put D.V. on notice of contempt risk? | Order language was vague about remaining in placement. | Court intended placement; notice was adequate. | Order not sufficiently clear to establish knowledge of contempt. |
| Did verbal notices and caseworker testimony establish knowledge of rules and penalties? | Adults discussed consequences; D.V. knew he should not leave placement. | Verbal notices did not clearly link to contempt for leaving the placement. | Not enough to show D.V. understood contempt consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (U.S. 2011) (juvenile's maturity and notice considerations in enforcement)
- State v. L.A., 245 P.3d 213 (Utah App. 2010) (contempt requires clear notice to individual)
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (contempt requires knowledge of required conduct and consequences)
- In re K.M., 2007 UT 93, 173 P.3d 1279 (Utah) (juvenile-specific cautions in court orders)
- American Fork City v. Rothe, 12 P.3d 108 (Utah App. 2000) (sufficiency standard for appellate review of evidence)
- Gardiner v. York, 233 P.3d 500 (Utah 2010) (Confrontation Clause considerations in contempt)
- Burgers v. Maiben, 652 P.2d 1320 (Utah 1982) (Confrontation considerations in contempt)
- State v. K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (preservation/argument requirements on appeal)