Court Opinion

ID: 9603786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:09:44.321759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:07.425098
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. This case should not be remanded for findings and conclusions (as to the validity of the search of the home) unless we can definitively hold that the evidence obtained therefrom was prejudicial to the defendant.
The State urges us to assume, for the sake of argument, “that both searches of Genove-si’s home were improper, and that all evidence obtained during those searches should have been suppressed.” The State contends that any error in denying the motion to suppress was harmless because other independent evidence overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt. Based on this argument, it would not matter what the trial court may find or conclude about the search of the home. See, e.g., State v. Scandrett, 24 Utah 2d 202, 468 P.2d 639 (1970) (affirming conviction for second-degree murder where guilt was shown by untainted evidence so overwhelming that there was no likelihood of different result).
I dissent because the main opinion fails to address a potentially dispositive issue.