Salt Lake City, UT – The Utah Court of Appeals will hold a special oral argument session at Utah State University in Logan on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The session, which is open to the public, will take place in the Russell/Wanlass Performance Hall, located at 4030 Old Main Hill. The judicial panel will be comprised of Associate Presiding Judge Ryan M. Harris, Judge David N. Mortensen, and Judge John D. Luthy. The panel will hear the following cases:
State v. Qayum, 20240207 – 10:00 a.m.
Qayum began chatting with “Mae” through an online dating app. But Mae was not real: her persona was created by an undercover agent, and it featured a photograph of an 18-year-old model and a listed age of “18.” Qayum offered to pay Mae for “cuddling, making out, maybe sex.” Mae agreed, but she asked if it was a problem that she was only 13 years old. Qayum responded, “you’re very young we can do it but we have to be very careful.” Eventually, the two arranged a time to meet, and when Qayum arrived at the meeting location, he was arrested. A detective informed him of his Miranda rights and asked, “Do you understand everything?” Qayum responded, “I have to tell my attorney to talk to you and answer my question.” The detective followed, “So, you understand all that?” Qayum said, “Yeah.” Qayum then proceeded to answer the detective’s questions and, during the interview, he told the detective that he was expecting to have sex with Mae and that if Mae had wanted to, it “could have happened.”
Qayum was charged with enticing a minor. Before trial, Qayum asked the court to dismiss the case on two grounds: that (1) the State failed to preserve evidence (including the original online profile and photograph) that he claimed would have been helpful to the defense, and (2) Qayum needed but could not present the testimony of the person whose photo appeared on the profile, and who the State claimed was a “confidential informant.” Qayum also asked the court to suppress the statements he made during his police interview, arguing that he had requested a lawyer and therefore the interview should have terminated. The district court denied all three motions. Following trial, the jury convicted Qayum of enticing a minor.
On appeal, Qayum raises three arguments. First, he asserts that the district court should have dismissed the case on the ground that the police “entrapped” him. Second, he argues that the court erred when it denied his two motions to dismiss, described above. And third, he asserts that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress, described above. The State opposes Qayum’s arguments.
State v. Devore, 20240393 at 10:45 a.m
In 2018, Devore entered another man’s home, found that man with his (Devore’s) ex-wife, and punched the man in the face. Devore later pled guilty to aggravated burglary. As part of his plea, Devore acknowledged that he might be ordered to pay restitution related to the burglary and the associated assault. In July 2020, Devore was sentenced to sixty days of jail time and forty-eight months probation. In 2021, the Utah Office for Victims of Crime requested $360 in restitution for the other man’s medical expenses. Then in November 2023, after the other man had facial surgery, the State filed a motion for an additional $30,000 in restitution. A final order of restitution awarding the requested $30,000 was entered in 2024.
On appeal, Devore argues that the State’s request for additional restitution was untimely and, thus, prohibited by the version of the Crime Victims Restitution Act in effect at the time of sentencing and by the amended version of that Act that was in effect when the State submitted its request for additional restitution. Devore’s trial attorney did not object to the order for additional restitution on the basis that the request was untimely. On appeal, Devore contends that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the order on that basis amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court’s issuance of the order amounted to plain error. Devore also argues–based on evidence that the other man had two facial injuries prior to the altercation during the burglary–that the trial court erroneously determined that Devore’s actions were what caused the other man to need a $30,000 facial surgery.
Please note that these case summaries have been prepared for educational purposes only, as a convenience to students, the public, and the press. They have been prepared by court staff and do not necessarily reflect the judges’ views about the case.
# # #
This entry was posted in Uncategorized.
