State v. Williams
300 P.3d 788
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams was convicted of three counts of securities fraud (second degree felonies) and an associated restitution order.
- Appellant challenges parol evidence, jury instructions on material fact, trial counsel's investigation/presentation, admissibility of a $250,000 investment, motion to withdraw, and restitution.
- Court affirms convictions but remands to modify restitution to limit to losses related to charged offenses.
- Court notes preservation issues and applies plain error/ineffective assistance standards; several issues inadequately briefed.
- Trial court admitted disputed parol evidence; court declines to rule it unconstitutional in criminal context and finds no obvious error or prejudice.
- Jury instructed that material fact means information material to investment decisions; court finds no prejudice from the definition offered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parol evidence admissibility in criminal securities case | Williams argues parol evidence should be excluded | State contends parol evidence may be admissible to prove fraud | Not plain error; evidence not shown to have prejudicial impact or obvious error |
| Definition of material fact for securities fraud | Material fact should target sophisticated investors | Current definition appropriate for ordinary investors | No reversible error; definition valid and not prejudicial |
| Restitution tied to $250,000 investment | Restitution should include funds from the $250,000 investment | Investment not tied to charged conduct; improper to include | Remanded to modify restitution to reflect losses from charged offenses only |
| Motion to withdraw counsel | Court should grant withdrawal | Court lawfully denied due to defendant's absence and delay tactics | Denial within court's discretion; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. State, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error standard requires obvious error and prejudice)
- Litherland v. State, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (ineffective assistance requires prejudice and deficient performance)
- Kelley v. State, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah 2000) (ineffective assistance requires prejudice and deficient performance)
- Wadsworth v. State, 282 P.3d 1037 (Utah App 2012) (trial court ruling on counsel withdrawal within discretion)
- Cantamar, LLC v. Champagne, 142 P.3d 140 (Utah App 2006) (parol evidence admissibility in civil context; relevance to fraud)