State v. May

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ronnie Todd May, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20070278-CA F I L E D (February 28, 2008) 2008 UT App 61 ----Second District, Ogden Department, 061901638 The Honorable Ernest W. Jones Attorneys: Randall W. Richards, Ogden, for Appellant Teral L. Tree, Ogden, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Thorne, Bench, and Billings. PER CURIAM: On appeal, May asserts that the trial court erred in excluding a court docket entry as evidence. A trial court's decision to exclude evidence will not be reversed unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. See Gorostieta v. Parkinson, 2000 UT 99, ¶ 14, 17 P.3d 1110. Rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides that a trial court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues or misleading the jury. See Utah R. Evid. 403. May asserts that he should have been allowed to introduce a court docket entry that read, "Per Judge Lyon, hold until further motions are filed." May argues that this docket entry could have led him to believe that the stalking injunction was stayed, and that he therefore did not intentionally violate the stalking injunction. However, May did not testify and there was no evidence that he had knowledge of the docket statement. Thus, the trial court ruled to exclude the docket entry finding that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading or confusing the jury. Because there is no evidence that May knew of the docket entry, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by finding its probative value was substantially outweighed by its danger of misleading or confusing the jury.1 Accordingly, May's stalking conviction is affirmed. ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ Judith M. Billings, Judge 1. May also asserts that the docket entry constituted a vague court order. Even assuming that a docket entry could possibly be construed as a court order, the fact that there was no evidence that May had knowledge of the entry is dispositive of this issue. 20070278-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.