NOTABLE VICTORIES   Aric Cramer had a stipulated motion to suppress in the case of State v. Erickson. A lieutenant from the Sheriff’s Office interviewed Mr. Erickson after he shot and killed another man at the Timberline restaurant in Beaver, Utah. A transcript of the interrogation had many “unintelligible” quotes. Mr. Cramer had his defense investigator enhance the audio on the recordings. Low and behold, the enhanced video and audio recordings of the interview showed Mr. Erickson requesting his attorney several times, and each time it was requested the lieutenant simply ignored the requests and continued questioning. Some inculpatory statements were made as the questioning continued. The defense investigator discovered this as he did the evidence review of all discovery materials that were submitted in the case. Mr. Cramer filed a motion to suppress before the preliminary hearing, and the Beaver County Attorney stipulated to the motion without even the necessity of a hearing. Aric Cramer recently convinced Fifth District Court Judge G. Rand Beacham to reverse his own bindover. The Defendant, who had been charged in a separate case of violation of a protective order against his daughter, was attending the same college as she was. In fact, they shared one class together. The Defendant/father wrote her a note that said in essence: If you want to dismiss the charges, you can contact the Washington County Attorney’s Office. He also provided in that same note, her next court date, phone numbers for the County Attorney, for Mr. Cramer and other information about the underlying case. The prosecutor then filed felony charges against the father for witness tampering alleging that the note was a violation of the statute. At the preliminary hearing, the daughter/accuser testified that her father was an alcoholic, that he always did this kind of thing, i.e. making a scene and later apologizing for it and asking for forgiveness. Initially Judge Beacham bound the Defendant/father over, but upon the motion to quash the bindover, through memorandums and oral arguments, the Judge reversed himself. He indicated that he was concerned that the statute was Constitutionally vague and overbroad, that it forbade a number of types of protected free speech under the First Amendment, and that the Defendant/father had not encouraged the daughter/accuser to not testify or to testify falsely, only to contact the prosecutor if she wished to drop the charges. Therefore, the Judge summarily dismissed the case. Aric Cramer recently prevailed on a motion to suppress. The Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for no insurance. The driver was stopped, detained and found to have a warrant for his arrest. The officer then requested of the Defendant his identification information in order to “see if he had a valid license to drive the car away.” The Defendant had a warrant for his arrest, and after his arrest he was searched and methamphetamine was found in his pocket. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the passenger was seized, as well as the driver, when the vehicle was stopped. The officer had no probable cause to detain him or inquire about his identity or ability to drive the vehicle in that it was not legal to drive the vehicle without insurance. Therefore, the officer had no probable cause to investigate the Defendant. After testimony, oral arguments and briefing, the Court filed a written decision granting the motion to suppress in that the officer had no probable cause to detain the Defendant and that there was no reason to not just let him go on his way. Therefore, it was a warrantless seizure and the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. All charges against the Defendant were then dismissed. Aric Cramer recently had a notable victory in the dismissal of a case at preliminary hearing. The case was a first degree felony aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The case involved a four year old child who had alleged that his uncle, who had severe emotional and developmental problems, had taken him into a bathroom and touched his butt and put scissors against his penis and cut him. The CJC interview of the four year old contained statements by the child that were contradictory and rambling. When the officer asked him if anyone had touched him inappropriately or in a way that hurt him, he didn’t mention the scissors incident. He indicated that at some point his uncle had touched his leg and then said later that his uncle had patted him on the butt. The officer, when testifying about investigating the incident, testified that nobody had ever examined the child’s penis. He was taken to a medical facility where pictures had been taken and there was no evidence of any cuts or marks on the accuser. After the evidence had been given, the prosecution argued that there was sufficient evidence for a bindover due to the child’s testimony. Aric Cramer argued that there was no evidence of a sexual intent to arouse or gratify anybody’s sexual desire by the patting on the butt testimony. The child had testified on different occasions that they had been clothed as well as naked, and that his uncle had been clothed, naked and partially naked. Aric Cramer also argued that there was no evidence that there was intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily harm to any person from the scissors incident due to the lack of any physical evidence and the fact that the child didn’t mention that first when interviewed by the officer, since a severed penis, even in the mind of a four year old boy, would be an item that would come to mind first when talking about inappropriate touching. The Court agreed and indicated that it didn’t feel there was substantial evidence on any intent to bindover the case, and summarily dismissed it. Second District Court-Bountiful Our client was accused by a younger step-sibling of repeated episodes of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, all first degree felony charges with mandatory imprisonment upon conviction. Following nearly a year-and-a-half of investigation and litigation, Aric Cramer and Rob Latham tried the case to a jury, whose members found our client not guilty on all counts.