[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6493218,"mediaKeyId","5682296-d8af40b4a99b85b7bfe47dd14ff1ab10","parentId",5682296,"title","Court of Appeals hears arguments over admissibility of ‘grooming’ evidence in State v. Newberry","audioSeconds",2681,"startMs",872000,"endMs",3553000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5682296-d8af40b4a99b85b7bfe47dd14ff1ab10&start=872&end=3553","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5682296-d8af40b4a99b85b7bfe47dd14ff1ab10/thumbnail_872000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6493218/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-arguments-over-admissibility-of-grooming-evidence-in-State-v-Newberry","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493218-72154db77059080593d588ca01f96eb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770499132&Signature=IgGC4tj-8jj7UnCO2e-2l3zSJqAbKA-ETzFnSYgFdyJpSPGvr9BH57X5vKbq-eY2m9ZcAFcSjERrXXAdIu3tF4gQSMGgjUMgp6E-G1MLgVK9-1sSgqz2cfkOM0-Ag469IiZz0VT2~Os~MCtNVRNH~ii4aFWQCmIKoHW3HX3mKso2x0JeZmQ7Qm21nOuiYMLBEtiolzEoglmmnczgdStlLBoESyNshv32ph1X0CbZmXSahzHJu-EZOZkEjo0ob5g6d~0lwNvGlzvYJnTX6dwX9s3j3~g-WGism5U1e6sRtdWAdUOZ67sjbjWrYHFJvCFc8oWWeTOC3UcZTiVDfUP77w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-08-26T00:00:00Z","article","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Newberry (No. 20230121) over whether the district court erred in admitting allegations about the defendant’s prior conduct under Utah Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 403.

Appellant counsel Anna Grigsby argued the district court abused its discretion in admitting the other‑acts allegations, saying State v. Reed does not authorize evidence of ongoing behavior where the only inference is one of propensity. \"Reed...does not hold that ongoing behavior evidence is admissible to show propensity,\" Grigsby told the three‑judge panel. She argued the prior incidents (allegedly occurring outside Utah) were not intrinsic to the charged offense and did not show planning, opportunity, or preparation in a way that bore on any disputed element at trial.

Assistant Utah Attorney General David Simpson, for the State, responded that the district court permissibly admitted the evidence either as intrinsic (inextricably intertwined with the charged act) or under Rule 404(b) to show preparation and planning. Simpson said the court’s ruling described the allegations as legitimately part of the case narrative and thus not used merely for a character inference: \"The prosecutor argued...the jury would hear how the defendant and the victim grew close while driving together, described an escalating pattern of conduct, and argued that this escalating pattern of conduct culminated with the incident here in Utah,\" Simpson said.

Judges probed both sides on fine distinctions between evidence that is intrinsic to the charged offense and evidence that is permitted under Rule 404(b) for non‑propensity purposes such as identity, opportunity, preparation, planning, or to explain delay in disclosure. Judge Ryan Harrison asked whether \"grooming\" itself is a non‑propensity purpose or merely a label for a pattern that must be linked to a separate non‑character purpose. Grigsby replied that grooming must be tied to a proper non‑character purpose to be admissible; otherwise it invites the jury to infer propensity. Simpson said the doctrines overlap in this category of cases and that, on these facts, the evidence fit within the narrative of how the charged act came about.

Both sides also disputed whether the State had preserved an intrinsic‑evidence theory below and whether the district court’s limiting instruction to the jury was sufficiently precise. Simpson argued the trial court’s ruling and the later jury instruction were consistent with admitting the evidence for context or to show a pattern and that defense counsel had opportunities to object but declined to press specific instruction language.

The panel did not rule from the bench. After argument, the court took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a written decision in due course.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20230121 State v. Newberry audio file","oneSentenceSummary","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Newberry (No. 20230121) over whether the district court erred in admitting allegations of prior conduct under Utah Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 403.","taxTitle","Utah Court of Appeals Live Stream, Utah Appellate Court, Utah Judicial Branch, Utah","taxId",76036,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6493209,"Court of Appeals hears dispute over prenup valuation, expert disclosures in Moyle v. Moyle",3823,3677000,7500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5682296-d8af40b4a99b85b7bfe47dd14ff1ab10&start=3677&end=7500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5682296-d8af40b4a99b85b7bfe47dd14ff1ab10/thumbnail_3677000.jpg","/articles/6493209/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-dispute-over-prenup-valuation-expert-disclosures-in-Moyle-v-Moyle","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493209-e0f9bbc2135ed5411c311ad18c614033/orig.mp4?Expires=1770499132&Signature=VqSFuIrP7K51x42G4l7CdcJeLeRgp3pZWRogyublh~jwUBTZIcFZgmVaf3oBi1iDdUO2BKd7EKvTlTkA468P8MSMsF4R7xosBDeec9hgz9U7dFdhT7L-vviQyIt4Td6DD0r9P2Otufo6CVvy-hAG8eX0Ja8TvKFU5SVhhfhyHQWoINzZx1d8P-g7yJCUoyvHbwbjcXL5N~rXGNh23DbW4aAlBgfn~bgbMcN67vyftJKb8~3XRutsG3C26N3eW5IWyxU45OyETzL9kNrkZ2Sx0bgnmzr9DQ-PEEA-GPqiVXDv7ImtNspHvAXtrpKD2qaYeTCiNOsk8Dz~fujX2UOy9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Moyle v. Moyle (No. 20231097), a family‑law appeal in which the parties dispute how a premarital agreement and trialcourt findings should determine when and how to value each spouse’s net worth and which trial rulings to uphold.

Appellant Jamie Moyle, through counsel Brody Miles, argued the district court erred by allowing a financial expert to testify without producing underlying documents and by applying inconsistent valuation dates for net‑worth calculations. \"None of those [underlying documents] were ever provided,\" Miles told the panel, saying the absence of the underlying data prevented effective cross‑examination and tainted valuation figures the court used. The parties and judges discussed a contested valuation of an interest in Jackson Equity Partners (JEP): the State trial record included competing figures cited by experts, including a $1,700,000 estimate referenced in one expert report and a $350,000 figure elsewhere, creating a disputed arithmetic impact on net‑worth comparisons.

Counsel for appellee Brianna Moyle, Bart Johnson, replied that the expert (Cory Kennedy) regularly provides a standard report referencing relied‑upon documents, that many of the cited source materials are public or in the parties’ possession, and that the disclosure objections were not preserved in the precise Rule 26 posture required for reversal. Johnson said the district court limited speculative testimony during trial and made specific findings about admissible opinions.

The panel also addressed whether the premarital agreement’s text effectively fixed a single valuation date for net worth or left an ambiguity that required remand for further factual development. The trial court found Jamie had \"intentionally disposed\" of some property after filing for divorce and therefore valued certain items at an earlier date (the parties’ first financial disclosures) to avoid permitting alleged dissipation to affect the net‑worth calculation. Appellant’s counsel argued the agreement’s language is ambiguous and that contract rules should determine intent; appellee’s counsel and the trial judge relied on equitable divorce principles and findings about dissipation to justify the valuation date the court chose.

On attorney fees, the parties disputed whether a premarital provision that limits payments \"except as provided\" and an Article 10 enforcement clause permitted an award of prevailing‑party fees. The trial court awarded fees to Brianna for prevailing on net‑worth aspects but denied fees tied to marital‑property allocations it found to be a wash. Counsel debated whether the court may parcel fee awards by issue or must make a single prevailing‑party determination.

Counsel also argued bifurcation of the divorce (divorcing first and deferring complex property issues) and whether the district court abused discretion by denying bifurcation. The panel questioned whether bifurcation would shorten or extend litigation and the practical effects of the trial court’s scheduling choices.

The court did not announce a decision from the bench; after argument it took the matter under advisement and said a written opinion would follow.","The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Moyle v. Moyle (No. 20231097), a family‑law appeal raising whether a prenuptial agreement and trial court findings correctly set the date and method for valuing net worth, and whether the court abused its discretion on attorney fees, expert disclosures, bifurcation, and property classification.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court of Appeals hears arguments over admissibility of ‘grooming’ evidence in State v. Newberry

Court of Appeals hears dispute over prenup valuation, expert disclosures in Moyle v. Moyle