State v. Bozung
2011 UT 2
| Utah | 2011Background
- March 9, 2007, Joshua Ruzicka died from a drug overdose; Gareth Bozung found him and reported it to police.
- Bozung was later arrested on unrelated drug charges; officers reportedly advised him of his Miranda rights at arrest.
- While in custody, Detective Moosman interviewed Bozung about Ruzicka's death; interview was recorded; Bozung initialed a waiver form and spoke.
- Bozung confessed to selling heroin to Ruzicka during the night of the death; he provided a written witness statement.
- Bozung moved to suppress oral and written statements, alleging inadequate Miranda advisement and waiver; district court granted suppression.
- Two days after the oral ruling, State moved to reopen suppression to present additional police testimony; district court denied the motion, relying on Rule 24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 24 apply to pretrial evidentiary rulings? | Bozung relied on Rule 24 to deny rehearing; State argues Rule 24 does not apply pretrial. | Bozung contends Rule 24 governs posttrial motions only. | Rule 24 does not apply to pretrial evidentiary rulings. |
| May a district court reopen a pretrial suppression hearing for new or additional evidence? | State sought reopening; district court refused under misapplied rule 24. | Bozung argues the original suppression ruling should be final absent new evidence. | District court has discretion to reopen pretrial evidentiary matters. |
| What factors guide the district court's discretion to rehear pretrial evidentiary matters? | State urges liberal discretion to allow a complete presentation of the case. | Bozung emphasizes stability of rulings and limits on reconsideration. | Totality of the circumstances and nonexclusive factors should guide discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wasatch Oil Ref. Co. v. Wade, 63 P.2d 1070 (Utah 1936) (pretrial evidentiary reconsideration favored to present full case)
- United States v. Ozuna, 561 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2009) (emphasizes public interest in admitting relevant evidence)
- United States v. Rabb, 752 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir.1984) (evidence lawfully obtained may warrant reconsideration of suppression)
- Thompson v. Steptoe, 366 S.E.2d 647 (W.Va.1988) (evidence admissibility may warrant reopening to bolster argument)
- State v. Simoneau, 833 A.2d 1280 (Vt.2003) (consideration of grounds to revisit pretrial ruling)
- Roberts, 978 F.2d 17 (1st Cir.1992) (negligence versus deliberate misconduct relevant to reopening)
- State v. James, 635 P.2d 1102 (Wash.App.1981) (prosecutor's experience informing reopening considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Branch, 437 A.2d 748 (Pa.Super.Ct.1981) (omitted evidence can justify reopening suppression)
- United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir.1999) (court consideration of docket management in reopening)
- Gardner v. Christensen, 23 P.3d 1043 (Utah 2001) (limits on applying Rule 24 to pretrial context)