Court Opinion

ID: 9850576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:59:31.552367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:39.657024
License: Public Domain

RUSSON, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I join the majority in reversing the trial court’s denial of Elder’s motion to suppress. However, given the majority’s analytical approach in reaching the said result, I must concur in the result only.
The majority relies on State v. Bobo, 803 P.2d 1268 (Utah App.1990), and State v. Vigil, 164 Utah Adv.Rep. 28 (Utah App.1991), for the proposition that consent is a legal conclusion which we review for correctness. Addressing the issue of consent, this court has recently held that such is a question of fact, to be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard. State v. Sterger, 808 P.2d 122, 126 n. 5 (Utah App.1991); State v. Grovier, 808 P.2d 133, 136 n. 1 (Utah App.1991); but see State v. Carter, 812 P.2d 460, 468 n. 8 (Utah App.1991). In Sterger and Grovier, we expressly declined to follow the analytical approach taken in Bobo, which created a two part analysis as to the issue of consent — first, a factual determination, and then a legal conclusion. See Grovier, 808 P.2d at 136 n. 1.
Nonetheless, I support the result reached by the majority in this case. Given the facts of this case — that Mrs. Elder gave Lones her house keys for the limited purpose of retrieving some personal items, that Mrs. Elder did not give Lones the keys to the crawlspace, that Mrs. Elder did not ask Lones to take the police into the home, and that Lones had to break through two dead bolt locks to gain entry to the crawlspace — I would hold that the ultimate finding of fact reached by the court below, the finding of valid consent to search of the crawlspace, was clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, because I disagree with the analysis used by the majority herein as to the issue of consent, I concur in the result only.