State v. Bozung
2011 Utah LEXIS 3
| Utah | 2011Background
- March 9, 2007: Joshua Ruzicka died of a drug overdose; Gareth Bozung discovered him and notified police.
- Bozung was later arrested on unrelated drug charges on May 1, 2007 and advised of Miranda rights at that time.
- During custody, Bozung was interviewed by Detective Moosman; interview was recorded and Bozung initialed a waiver form after being reminded of rights.
- Bozung provided a confession to selling heroin to Ruzicka and completed a written witness statement; he moved to suppress the statements claiming inadequate Miranda advisement.
- The district court orally granted suppression, then issued a written ruling silent on waiver specifics, finding rights not adequately advised or knowingly waived.
- Two days after the oral suppression order, the State moved to reopen to present evidence from Lehi officers; the district court denied, relying on Rule 24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 24 governs pretrial rehearing | State argues Rule 24 applies to posttrial, not pretrial. | Bozung argues Rule 24 is applicable to motions to reopen and review. | Rule 24 does not govern pretrial motions to reopen. |
| District court’s discretion to grant pretrial motions to rehear evidentiary matters | State contends court should have discretion to reopen for totality of evidence. | Bozung contends discretion was limited by Rule 24 reasoning. | District court has broad discretion to grant pretrial motions to rehear evidentiary matters. |
| Totality of the circumstances and nonexclusive factors for reopening | State emphasizes completeness of evidence and potential substantial impact. | Bozung asserts insufficient grounds to reopen. | The court should evaluate supervening evidence under totality of circumstances and listed factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2009) (pretrial evidence may be reopened to present relevant evidence)
- United States v. Rabb, 752 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1984) (evidence lawfully obtained; reconsider suppression order)
- State v. James, 635 P.2d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) (nonexclusive factors on reopening evidence)
- Thompson v. Steptoe, 366 S.E.2d 647 (W.Va. 1988) (evidence would have impacted the trial decision)
- Roberts, 978 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1992) (negligence and deliberate misconduct considerations in reopening)
- Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999) (pretrial reconsideration and evidentiary matters)