Legal Opinion

State v. Pham

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided May 19, 2016No. 20140438-CAPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN, Judge:

11 Defendant Anh Tuan Pham challenges his convictions, He argues that the admission of preliminary hearing testimony infringed upon his Confrontation Clause rights and that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence at trial to support one of the convie-tions. We affirm,

*736BACKGROUND

{2 Defendant and his friend went to a convenience store to replenish their party supplies. The victim (Victim) and his girlfriend went to. the same convenience store to get water for their baby. After they arrived, they saw Defendant "picking on" or "bullying" two younger men outside…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. People v. FrySupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  4. State v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. TuckerArizona Supreme Court · 2003

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. CruzCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016
  2. State v. CourtneyCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2017
  3. State v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2017
  4. State v. SeumanuCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2019
  5. State v. PhamCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API