State v. De La Rosa
Court of Appeals of Utah
1Opinion of the Court
ORME, Judge:
¶1 After a jury convicted him of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and one count of retail theft, defendant Jose De La Rosa, through post-conviction counsel, moved the court for a new trial pursuant to rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. He claimed entitlement to a new trial on five grounds: (1) the jury instruction on constructive possession was inadequate; (2) his prior drug possession and distribution convictions should not have been admitted at trial; (3) there was juror misconduct; (4) his retail theft charge should have…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Crookston v. Fire Insurance ExchangeUtah Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. MaestasUtah Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. BarrettUtah Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. TopanotesUtah Supreme Court · 2003
- ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C.Utah Supreme Court · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Torres-OrellanaUtah Supreme Court · 2024
- Peterson v. Hyundai MotorCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2021
- Provo City v. GedoCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2024
- State v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2026
- State v. RiddleCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2019