State v. Cater, 336 P.3d 32

Cater was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery (two first-degree felonies) after a spree involving five robberies, two kidnappings, and a murder.
The State charged Cater in February 2009; the case was assigned to Assistant DAs Nelson and Postma.
Morgan and Hall, former SLCDA prosecutors, initially represented Cater; Morgan left, then Hall returned to the SLCDA.
In 2011, the Attorney General’s office appointed Nelson, Postma, and Evershed as special assistant AGs to prosecute; Cater objected to the SLCDA’s continued prosecution.
The trial court found the SLCDA’s screening measures sufficient to prevent disclosure of Cater’s confidences and denied Cater’s disqualification motion; Cater appeals.
The appellate court reviews the trial court’s disqualification decision for abuse of discretion and defers to factual findings unless clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying disqualification.	Cater argues screening was inadequate; unwritten policy insufficient.	SLCDA showed effective screening; Morgan and Hall were properly screened; no confidences were shared.	No abuse of discretion; screening sufficient to rebut presumption of shared confidences.

State v. McClellan, 2009 UT 50 (Utah (2009)) (disqualification rulings involve mixed questions of law and fact; screening may rebut presumed confidences)
State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410 (Utah App. 2008) (discretionary ruling on disqualification limited; screening procedures assessed case-by-case)
State v. Kinkennon, 747 N.W.2d 437 (Neb. 2008) (screening measures may include written rules and access restrictions)
People v. Davenport, 760 N.W.2d 743 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (unwritten screening policies can be adequate if effective and properly enforced)
Lux v. Commonwealth, 484 S.E.2d 151 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (screening effectiveness protects confidences in attorney–client matters)