380 P.3d 349
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael Smith was arrested for DUI and charged in Salt Lake City Justice Court; the justice court granted his pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop.
- The City appealed that suppression order to the district court via a prosecutor-initiated hearing de novo under Utah Code § 78A-7-118(5); the district court (Judge Hruby-Mills) heard briefing, testimony, and argument and denied Smith’s motion to suppress, remanding to justice court.
- Smith pleaded guilty in justice court and then appealed his conviction to the district court for a trial de novo under Utah Code § 78A-7-118(1); the appeal was again assigned to Judge Hruby-Mills.
- At the trial de novo, Smith refiled the motion to suppress; the district court declined to rehear it, reasoning rehearing was not necessary under Utah R. Crim. P. 38(e)(2) and invoking law-of-the-case principles.
- Smith petitioned this court for extraordinary relief under Utah R. Civ. P. 65B, seeking an order compelling the district court to reconsider the motion to suppress (and to reassign the case to a different judge). The City and Judge Hruby-Mills opposed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata (issue preclusion) bars relitigation of a suppression motion decided in an earlier hearing de novo | Smith: trial de novo is a "fresh start" and prior hearing de novo decision should not preclude rehearing suppression issues | Respondents: issue preclusion applies and bars relitigation | Court: Res judicata (issue preclusion) does not apply because the hearing de novo and trial de novo are part of one continuous proceeding, not separate prior actions |
| Whether the district court was required to rehear the suppression motion on trial de novo | Smith: entitled to full rehearing at trial de novo so counsel can fully advocate under current law and evidence | Respondents: law-of-the-case/mandate principles and efficiency argue against mandatory rehearing; district court need not rehear | Court: Not required to rehear; second branch of law of the case applies, giving discretion to reconsider but not mandating it |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine compelled the district court to follow its earlier hearing de novo ruling or prohibited reconsideration | Smith: trial de novo should nullify prior district-court ruling; seeks a fresh adjudication | Respondents: prior district-court ruling should be binding in subsequent proceedings | Court: First branch (mandate) inapplicable; second branch (coordinate-court respect) governs and permits but does not force reconsideration |
| Whether extraordinary relief under Utah R. Civ. P. 65B was warranted to compel rehearing or reassignment | Smith: district court abused discretion and no adequate remedy exists | Respondents: district court acted within discretion | Court: Denies petition—Smith failed to show abuse of discretion or other factors warranting extraordinary relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pledger v. Cox, 626 P.2d 415 (Utah 1981) (defines "de novo" as a complete retrial and discusses scope of retrial)
- Bernat v. Allphin, 106 P.3d 707 (Utah 2005) (characterizes trial de novo as an enlarged, fact-sensitive part of a continuous proceeding)
- Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1984) (discusses trial de novo as part of a continuous course of proceedings)
- Thurston v. Box Elder County, 892 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1995) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine and exceptions permitting reconsideration)
- Collins v. Sandy City Board of Adjustment, 52 P.3d 1267 (Utah 2002) (sets elements for issue preclusion/res judicata)