HB 140 Amendments to Custody and Parent-time passed. The original version of this bill sought to require a parent to immediately notify the other parent if they reside with an individual or provides an individual with access to the child if they are aware that the individual is required to register as a sex offender, a kidnap offender, a child abuse offender, or has been convicted of child abuse, a sexual offense against a child, an offense for kidnapping or human trafficking of a child, a sexual exploitation offense against a child, or an offense that is substantially similar to these offenses. We were able to substitute the language with a provision from the domestic code that changes the notification requirement to a classification that a person living with a sex offender is a material change in circumstance which can allow the opposing spouse to seek a modification of child visitation privileges.

HB 272 Child Custody Proceedings Amendments passed. This bill requires the court to consider evidence relating to domestic violence or abuse in child custody cases. Although this bill is largely outside of our scope, we are concerned that it will force trial in domestic violence criminal cases.

HB 356 Bail Amendments requires a jail or pretrial services employee to include additional information with the probable cause statement submitted to the magistrate. Specifically, whether the individual is intoxicated to a degree that would endanger them or someone else if they were released. It does not change the standard or factors a magistrate must consider for release. The bill passed.

HB 459 Blended Plea Amendments passed. This bill prohibits blended plea agreements, which are plea agreements that combine juvenile disposition and adult sentencing provisions arising from a single criminal episode. Prosecution was opposed to the original bill’s retroactive clause, which created a second chance look and would have allowed youth to be released before transferring to an adult prison or to be released early from prison.  Ultimately, the final version of the bill removed the retroactive clause altogether. However, we are hopeful this conversation is helping in moving the Board of Pardon to make rule amendments where young people with lengthy prison sentences are concerned and to open dialogue around second chance legislation.

HJR 8 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Disqualification of a Judge allows either attorney in a civil case to disqualify a judge. The Judiciary is strongly opposed to this bill, but it passed despite their opposition.

HJR 13 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence Regarding Preliminary Hearings was one of our highest priority bills this session. This bill was brought forward in response to our two prelim reform bills that passed last year, SB 87 Criminal Prosecution Modifications and SJR 6 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Procedure and Evidence Regarding Criminal Prosecutions. The bill was prompted by concerns from prosecutors that last year's bill would require victims to testify in certain cases. These concerns were prompted by rulings from 2 judges in Utah County. It should be noted that in neither case was the victim required to testify. In fact, it seemed that prosecutors made deliberate strategy decisions to set the cases up for appeal. The bills clarified that victims may testify, but can not be compelled to do so. Importantly, 1102 statements are not admissible unless the state calls a law enforcement officer with knowledge of the details of the investigation. The bill also clarifies that details regarding the investigation can be developed through either direct or cross examination. Defense, prosecution, and victims groups all spoke in support of the bill and continued negotiations, including two of our attorneys. The bill passed after considerable compromise.

SB 63 Board of Pardons and Parole Amendments was a bill originally opposed by certain prosecutorial agencies and the defense bar. The original bill allowed the Board of Pardons and Parole to intervene in any judicial or administrative proceeding, including a criminal action, in which the board's jurisdiction may be affected. Prosecutors requested that the allowed time frame in this bill for the board to correct an illegal sentence be shortened from 90 days to 30 days, and the compromise was 60 days. This amendment was adopted and the bill passed.

SB 76 Evidence Retention Amendments represents the sponsor’s continuous efforts in evidence retention. Last session, the bill dealt with evidence retention for misdemeanor offenses. This year, the bill addressed the required time period that law enforcement must retain evidence for a felony offense and biological evidence for a violent felony offense.

A top issue this session was SB 110 Domestic Violence Amendments. In 2022, the sponsor ran H.B. 196, Transfer of Domestic Violence Cases, which allowed domestic violence misdemeanor cases to be transferred directly to district court in an effort to remove de novo review in a district court after a justice court trial. This was a priority oppose bill for us, but it managed to get through due to a rescinded amendment deal. This year, the sponsor ran SB 110 to extend domestic violence case transfer to 2029. In the last two years, we have requested specific language that would clarify that the victim must be contacted first before transfer can occur, but this change was never made. In speaking with the interested parties, we were led to believe that the bill was not going to pass, yet it did again. We worked with the house sponsor to add our requested language to HB 308 Crime Victim Amendments, which restructures victims councils and addresses relief for a violation of a victim's right. We were originally against HB 308, but backed it with our requested DV transfer language and it passed. However, in the last half hour of floor-time, the sponsor of SB 110 added an amendment to a different bill that further modified the requirement. The final DV transfer law that passed is not a large deviation from what we had attempted to pass. As it stands, the amendment removes the requirement to have the alleged victim consent to the transfer and requires that the prosecutor consult with the alleged victim before the transfer.

SB 180 Court Jurisdiction Modifications cleans up statutory language regarding the juvenile court and the justice court’s jurisdiction over offenses committed by 18 year-olds. This bill gives the juvenile court jurisdiction over misdemeanors, infractions, and ordinance violations committed on school property if committed by an 18-year-old enrolled in the high school where the offense occurred. The bill passed.