American Fork City v. Thayne , 279 P.3d 839 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                          IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    ‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐
    American Fork City,                        )           PER CURIAM DECISION
    )
    Plaintiff and Appellee,              )             Case No. 20120094‐CA
    )
    v.                                         )                   FILED
    )                 (May 3, 2012)
    Susan Thayne,                              )
    )              
    2012 UT App 134
    Defendant and Appellant.             )
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Fourth District, American Fork Department, 111101180
    The Honorable Christine S. Johnson
    Attorneys:      Susan Thayne, Pleasant Grove, Appellant Pro Se
    James Hansen and Timothy G. Merrill, Pleasant Grove, for Appellee
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Before Judges McHugh, Voros, and Christiansen.
    ¶1      Susan Thayne appeals her conviction of disorderly conduct, an infraction. This
    case is before the court on American Fork’s motion for summary disposition. We
    affirm.
    ¶2      This case arose in the aftermath of a minor traffic accident in which another
    driver allowed her vehicle to roll into the rear of a vehicle occupied by Susan Thayne
    and her daughter and co‐defendant, Jessica Thayne, while both vehicles were stopped
    at a stop light. The other driver, the investigating officer, and both Susan and Jessica
    Thayne testified at the bench trial. A recording of a 911 call made by Jessica Thayne and
    a 911 call made by the other driver was admitted into evidence. The other driver
    testified that both Susan and Jessica Thayne approached her vehicle, yelled at her using
    expletives, and caused her to be frightened for her safety. Although Susan Thayne
    characterized her initial approach to the other driver as smiling and laughing, the court
    found that this was inconsistent with the other evidence and further found that the fact
    that Susan Thayne could be heard in the background of the 911 call yelling an expletive
    was inconsistent with her claim that she was amused or laughing after the accident.
    The district court also found that the defendants’ allegation that the 911 recording had
    been tampered with was not credible. Finally, the district court found that neither
    defendant’s testimony was credible but that the other driver’s testimony was credible
    because “it converges with the testimony of the officer and also the [911] recording that
    [was] played . . . here in court.”
    ¶3     In her docketing statement, Susan Thayne stated as an issue for review that she
    did not yell at or threaten the other driver. She also claims that the other driver
    “freaked out” when she approached her to get her insurance information, and she
    claims that she did not talk loudly or scream at anyone. We construe this as a claim that
    the district court’s findings and decision were not supported by sufficient evidence.
    ¶4      “When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of [the] evidence, we must sustain
    the trial court’s judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the
    appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
    made.” State v. Larsen, 
    2000 UT App 106
    , ¶ 10, 
    999 P.2d 1252
     (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted). We defer “to the trial court’s ability and opportunity to
    evaluate credibility and demeanor.” State v. Goodman, 
    763 P.2d 786
    , 787 (Utah 1988).
    “[B]ecause the trial court had the opportunity to view these witnesses and weigh their
    credibility, we defer to its findings unless the record demonstrates clear error.” State v.
    Nichols, 
    2003 UT App 287
    , ¶ 27, 
    76 P.3d 1173
     (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted). Thus, a challenge to the district court’s credibility determinations fails if a
    defendant “has provided no reason for this court to depart from the deference we grant
    the trial court to make credibility determinations.” State v. Davie, 
    2011 UT App 380
    ,
    ¶ 25, 
    264 P.3d 770
     (mem.).
    ¶5     The district court found that Susan Thayne’s testimony was not credible and was
    inconsistent with other evidence before the court. In contrast, the district court found
    the testimony of the other driver to be credible and consistent with the other evidence
    and testimony before the court. We defer to the district court’s credibility
    determinations in this case. Susan Thayne failed to identify any other issues for review
    20120094‐CA                                  2
    and failed to respond to American Fork’s motion for summary disposition.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence.
    ____________________________________
    Carolyn B. McHugh,
    Presiding Judge
    ____________________________________
    J. Frederic Voros Jr.,
    Associate Presiding Judge
    ____________________________________
    Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
    20120094‐CA                              3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120094-CA

Citation Numbers: 2012 UT App 134, 279 P.3d 839

Filed Date: 5/3/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023