State v. Besic
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Denis Besic, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20060956-CA F I L E D (February 15, 2007) 2007 UT App 53 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 061901181 The Honorable Leslie A. Lewis Attorneys: Lori J. Seppi and Heather Brereton, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Bench, McHugh, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: Denis Besic petitioned for permission to appeal the trial court's order denying his motion to quash bindover on a charge of aggravated robbery. The petition was granted and Besic was permitted to appeal the order. This is before the court on the State's motion to dismiss in light of a recent decision. Subsequent to this court's granting of permission to appeal the interlocutory order denying Besic's motion to quash, this court addressed the issue raised in Besic's petition, whether the right to confrontation applied in preliminary hearings. See State v. Rhinehart, 2006 UT App 517. In Rhinehart, defendant argued that the Sixth Amendment and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), "provide criminal defendants with the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them at preliminary hearings." Rhinehart, 2006 UT App 517 at ¶11. This court held that "[t]he Confrontation Clause pertains to a criminal defendant's right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against the defendant at trial; it does not afford the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at a preliminary hearing." Id. at ¶14. Additionally, we held that Crawford did not make the Confrontation Clause applicable to preliminary hearings. See id. This holding squarely disposes of the issue Besic raises in his petition. Besic asserted that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was violated at his preliminary hearing when a witness refused to answer questions on cross-examination. Under Rhinehart, however, there was no violation because the right to confrontation does not apply to preliminary hearings. See id. Besic did not have a constitutional right to crossexamine the witness at the preliminary hearing. Because the issue raised in Besic's petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order has now been resolved, we dismiss the petition. Dismissed. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 20060956-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
