2025 legislation pertaining to

Judiciary & Criminal Procedure

For the past few years, select members of the Utah Legislature have voiced concerns with the operations and outcomes of Utah’s Judiciary. Several bills this session aimed to increase Legislative influence over the Judicial branch and the evaluation process for individual judges.

On the criminal procedure side, many bills this session sought to modify the rules and operational processes governing criminal investigations and judgments. As in past years, bail and pretrial release were at the top of our priorities as we continually work to protect the presumption of innocence and a defendant’s right to liberty.

2025 Judicial Bills.

TOP ISSUES

PASSED BILLS

HB 562 Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Amendments was this year’s bail bill. Early on in the 2024 interim, the bail bondsmen told us that they were going to try to reinstate a financial schedule this session. We had a choice to either oppose whatever bill they drafted outright or to add our own defense-positive provisions that would outweigh the negatives of having a financial schedule. It was extremely important to us and to the floor sponsor that SLLDA and the IDC were involved and overall supportive of the bill, and we worked closely with them to come up with the provisions that would make the bill more favorable to defense than what we were giving up by reinstating a bail schedule. There were many hurdles to getting this bill passed, including a still unfulfilled bail data request from the AOC. The bill failed its initial Senate vote, then passed when it was reconsidered. Despite the many changes and concessions made at the request of prosecutors, prosecutors actively opposed the bill right up to the very last day of the session. However, the bill did end up passing and defense stakeholders anticipate that the final result will be more beneficial to us than what is the current practice. The final provisions of the bill included the following provisions:

  • Clarifies that a judge may reconsider whether a person should receive bail after evidence is presented at a preliminary examination

  • Clarifies that a request for release that has not been fully presented to and ruled upon by a judge at an initial appearance does not constitute a pretrial detention hearing 

  • Requires a magistrate to consult a bail schedule for recommended bail amounts for various levels of offenses while also considering the defendant’s risk and ability to pay 

  • Prohibits a prosecutor from omitting any known information that may be favorable to the defendant when asking for a no-bail hold 

  • Requires a court to make a good faith effort to appoint a different judge to conduct a detention hearing if the assigned judge is unable to conduct the hearing within 14 days of a first appearance

  • Prevents a court from ordering a no-bail hold solely on the basis of a failure to appear 

  • (Non-bail clean-up language on restitution) Includes consensus clean-up language that resolves ambiguities in current practices to collect and determine restitution - mainly correcting gaps that have been discovered since a larger restitution bill passed in 2021

SB 157 Nonjudicial Adjustment Amendments prohibits a minor from declining to enter into a nonjudicial adjustment agreement unless the minor has received advice from legal counsel. It also modifies duties of the IDC to include provisions that encourage nonjudicial adjustments, including providing legal advice at no cost and staffing an attorney to provide this advice.

SB 286 Criminal Plea Withdrawal Amendments and SJR 10 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Regarding Pleas were high priority support bills from Sen. Pitcher. These pieces of legislation were brought forward in response to the State v. Rippey decision on plea withdrawal. They moved the plea withdrawal procedure to Rule 11 in the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, which gave defendants a right to counsel in this process.

FAILED BILLS

HB 171 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments was another top priority oppose for us. Rep. Clancy brought this bill to address sensitive data collected from a victim’s cell phone that is not relevant to an active criminal investigation that is given to a defendant. His solution was to establish a victim’s right to privacy for nonpublic electronic data in a criminal proceeding. While we understood his concern and the need to be sensitive to victim privacy, this bill represents a huge imposition on defense counsel. The bill sought to deny defense counsel access to “non-relevant” information from a victim’s cell phone unless defense accessed from a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor’s office. Even though the sponsor assured us that defense would continue to have unrestricted access to any evidence that the prosecutor and law enforcement are using, we were very concerned that all determinations of relevancy would be made by prosecutors and law enforcement and that combing through other data at an agency would take a large amount of defense time and resources. This would greatly impact court timelines and litigation. Additionally, the sponsor did not have a clear answer on what would happen procedurally if the defense did find something relevant in the restricted information, and we were staunchly opposed to adding an additional hurdle to defense discovery that is not applied to prosecution. Ultimately, Rep. Clancy agreed to drop the bill this year, but we expect to discuss this issue during the 2025 interim.

SJR 8 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence on Admissibility of Evidence of Crimes or Other Acts was a top priority oppose. This bill sought to allow evidence of past sexual assault cases to be admitted for consideration in a sexual assault case to prove a defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime. This bill came from Judge Paul Cassell, who said in his presentation that this provision has been in federal rules of evidence for 30 years and in a majority of states around the country. We were strongly opposed to this bill and testified that it would allow any evidence of any allegation to be considered and it would be impossible to disprove. The bill passed favorably to the floor but was not prioritized and was thus not voted on in time. It is likely that we will see this issue again, as Judge Cassell has been active in this policy space for many years and has been involved in the failed affirmative consent legislation.

OTHER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BILLS

PASSED BILLS

HB 29 Child Visitation Amendments makes it easier for third parties to obtain custody of a child if a parent is incarcerated by allowing a court to make findings regarding child abuse or neglect when deciding to grant custodial or visitation rights to someone other than a parent.

HB 49 Juror Eligibility Amendments underwent many changes throughout the session. The original bill sought to allow anyone convicted of a felony to serve as a juror after 10 years had passed since their offense or prison sentence, but this was opposed by many legislators who see this population as biased against the process. The version that passed allows people with a felony conviction to serve on a jury if their conviction has been expunged or reduced to a misdemeanor.

HB 226 Criminal Amendments was another high priority oppose bill. The original version of this bill was much worse, seeking to raise the incarceration term for all class A misdemeanors from 364 days to 365 days. This seemingly minor change would trigger expedited deportation for non-citizen offenders, in many cases removing their right to see an immigration judge. As we pointed out to the committee and sponsor, this would ONLY impact non-citizens that are here in the U.S. lawfully, since those here unlawfully are already subject to immediate deportation. The original version also sought to allow the dissolution of a nonprofit convicted of allowing the landing of aliens or human smuggling. After countless hours working on this with other defense-minded stakeholders, the final bill was narrowed to remove the provision on nonprofits and limit the sentencing enhancement to DUIs and offenses against another person. The bill still creates a rebuttable presumption at pretrial that someone is at risk of fleeing if they are in the U.S. unlawfully or if they have been charged with an offense that could revoke their lawful presence status and requires a sheriff to notify a relevant federal immigration authority when releasing a felony or class A misdemeanor offender who is in the U.S. unlawfully. We believe this bill and others like it this session are based on the false narrative that non-citizens offend at a higher rate than citizens, when the opposite is true.

HB 312 Criminal Justice Amendments is Rep. Lisonbee’s bill expanding the definition of “habitual offenders” as it pertains to misdemeanants, directing how treatment of this population should differ as it comes to pretrial release and sentencing. A habitual offender is defined as an individual who meets any of the following criteria:

  • Has been convicted in at least five previous cases, with each case involving one or more felony offenses, and each conviction occurred within the five-year period immediately preceding the day on which the defendant is convicted of a new felony offense.

  • Has been charged with one or more felony offenses in at least nine separate cases, and a felony charge in each case was issued within the five-year period immediately preceding the day on which the defendant is convicted of a new felony offense.

  • Has been convicted in at least nine previous cases, with each case involving one or more misdemeanor offenses, and each conviction occurred within the three-year period immediately preceding the day on which the defendant is convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony offense.

  • Has been charged with one or more misdemeanor offenses in at least 19 separate cases, and a misdemeanor charge in each case was issued within the three-year period immediately preceding the day on which the defendant is convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony offense.

The bill also does the following:

  • Requires a jail to contract with another jail before releasing someone due to overcrowding if their arrest or conviction is for a violent offense, felony drug offense, fentanyl offense, or DUI with injury or death, or if they are a habitual offender, if they have been arrested or convicted of another crime in the last 30 days, or if they have an outstanding warrant for failing to appear

  • Requires jails to prioritize housing county inmates over federal inmates

  • Prohibits the Department of Corrections from housing inmates in a private correctional facility, unless the purpose is federal immigration detention or civil detention

  • Adds strangulation or choking to DV in the presence of a child 

  • Prohibits the use of state funds for a syringe exchange program

  • Requires a county sheriff to report statistics on releases due to overcrowding and pretrial release

  • Prohibits releasing someone on a financial condition is the offense is a misdemeanor offenses for DV or DUI

The original bill also had provisions like criminalizing mask wearing in public spaces and allowing city prosecutors to prosecute felonies when county prosecutors failed to do so, as well as several provisions related to bail, but all of these were removed due to significant opposition.

HB 334 Guardianships and Supported Decision-Making Agreements Amendments creates the position of "supporter" in guardianships and supported decision-making agreements, which excludes anyone with: a conviction for harm, theft, or financial crime; a protective order; or a substantiated allegation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

HB 383 Court Fine Amendments was a very good bill from our defense colleague Rep. Miller which allows a court to reduce any unpaid amount of the criminal accounts receivable, except restitution, by an amount equivalent to what the defendant paid for court-ordered treatment if the court finds that not doing so will impose manifest hardship.

SB 74 Corrections Modifications prohibits those committed to DOC custody from requesting a sex designation change on their birth certificate. It provides that a government entity is not required to respond to people on parole regarding records requests and allows the DOC to independently investigate criminal allegations against individuals in custody and employees of the department. It also modifies the requirements for lethal injection to require any substance used to cause death without severe pain.

We supported SB 110 Summons Modifications from Sen. Pitcher, which creates a presumption for a summons over a warrant if the accused was released from jail because the prosecuting attorney did not file an information within the required time period.

SB 177 Child Welfare Amendments made a number of changes in the child welfare code. The final bill does the following:

  • Adds torture to the juvenile code and amends the definition of sexual abuse to include the act or attempted act of unlawful sexual activity and to remove the provision on repeated incidents. 

  • Allows an adjudicative proceeding to be stayed during an active criminal investigation.

  • Requires an alleged perpetrator to file a request to review a substantiated finding within 30 days and prohibits them from filing a petition to review if they have been convicted or plead guilty or no contest. 

  • In a shelter hearing, requires a court to consider relevant evidence regarding harm the child has suffered or will suffer due to the separation or continued separation from the child's parent or guardian. 

  • Extends the presumption that reunification services should not be provided to situations involving severe abuse and neglect, human trafficking of a child, or torture. 

  • When considering reunification, requires a court to consider if the parent's rights were voluntarily terminated. 

  • Provides that substantiation findings will be available only to those with statutory authority to access the Licensing Information System.

SB 185 Compensatory Service in Lieu of Fine Amendments, again from Sen. Pitcher, allows courts to consider compensatory service instead of fines for defendants with any criminal conviction, including traffic offenses, and raises the credit amount from $10 to $12 an hour.

SB 278 State Debt Collection Amendments exempts proceedings to enforce or collect a criminal account receivable, civil judgment of restitution, or civil account receivable from certain time limitations in the Utah Uniform Probate Code.

SB 326 Judgment Renewal Modifications provides that a statute of limitations runs from the date of renewal of a judgment, not only from the original date of a judgment, and provides that a judgment may be renewed multiple times.

FAILED BILLS

HB 117 Sexual Abuse Statutes of Limitation Amendments sought to remove the civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse and allow victims to bring a cause of action regardless of whether criminal charges were filed or the perpetrator was convicted. We did not publicly oppose this bill because the sponsor runs a version of it each year and it has not gained traction so far.

HB 171 Victim and Witness Privacy Amendments was another top priority oppose for us. Rep. Clancy brought this bill to address sensitive data collected from a victim’s cell phone that is not relevant to an active criminal investigation that is given to a defendant. His solution was to establish a victim’s right to privacy for nonpublic electronic data in a criminal proceeding. While we understood his concern and the need to be sensitive to victim privacy, this bill represents a huge imposition on defense counsel. The bill sought to deny defense counsel access to “non-relevant” information from a victim’s cell phone unless defense accessed from a law enforcement agency or a prosecutor’s office. Even though the sponsor assured us that defense would continue to have unrestricted access to any evidence that the prosecutor and law enforcement are using, we were very concerned that all determinations of relevancy would be made by prosecutors and law enforcement and that combing through other data at an agency would take a large amount of defense time and resources. This would greatly impact court timelines and litigation. Additionally, the sponsor did not have a clear answer on what would happen procedurally if the defense did find something relevant in the restricted information, and we were staunchly opposed to adding an additional hurdle to defense discovery that is not applied to prosecution. Ultimately, Rep. Clancy agreed to drop the bill this year, but we expect to discuss this issue during the 2025 interim.

HB 448 Pretrial Release Amendments sought to create the class C misdemeanor of violating a pretrial order in Iron County, Kane County, or Washington County and allow a county sheriff in these counties to detain someone they believe has violated a pretrial order for 24 hours without a warrant. This was a rural county issue, and the sponsor was trying to find a solution to expand pretrial services, but it didn’t move forward.

HB 450 Victim Privacy Amendments would have allowed a victim of a crime to have their initials used instead of their name in publicly available criminal justice documents, also creating a database of the full victim names for court use (a protected record under the Government Records Access and Management Act). We were opposed to this bill, though the newer version was better, and it wasn’t heard on time.

HB 549 Antidiscrimination Amendments sought to require that, when making a determination related to a penalty enhancement, a trier of fact must consider whether an action was motivated by antisemitism.

HB 561 Use of Force Reporting Requirements sought to prohibit a defendant from receiving a pretrial justification hearing process if they did not report the use of force to law enforcement as soon as they were not in imminent danger. We would have strongly opposed this bill, but it never left Rules.

SB 148 Court Fees and Administration Amendments would have increased the surcharge for cases filed using the online court assistance program from $20 to $60 and waived the fee for those preparing a request for a protective order.

We worked with the sponsor and other stakeholders to remove the criminal provisions of SB 176 Dog Injuries Amendments. The original bill created a class C misdemeanor for the owner of a dog involved in a dog attack that failed to notify law enforcement at the scene of the dog attack. The sponsor ran this bill to parallel auto incident code and to help people file claims after they’ve been attacked by a dog, but we testified that bodily harm is too broad and not defined in code, and that indirect harm is similarly too broad and could loop in a slew of accidents. This version of the bill failed to get recommended by a 3-3 vote. We worked with other stakeholders to get the misdemeanor removed, and the latest version of the bill only raises the maximum award from $50,000 to $75,000 in arbitration and at trial for a bodily injury claim in a dog attack case and provides that a claimant in arbitration or plaintiff at trial may maintain a wrongful death claim in a dog attack case. The bill was not prioritized and did not move forward.

SB 208 Parent-time and Custody Amendments sought to clarify that a parent registering as a child abuse offender counts as a material change in circumstances for custody orders.

SJR 8 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Evidence on Admissibility of Evidence of Crimes or Other Acts was a top priority oppose. This bill sought to allow evidence of past sexual assault cases to be admitted for consideration in a sexual assault case to prove a defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime. This bill came from Judge Paul Cassell, who said in his presentation that this provision has been in federal rules of evidence for 30 years and in a majority of states around the country. We were strongly opposed to this bill and testified that it would allow any evidence of any allegation to be considered and it would be impossible to disprove. The bill passed favorably to the floor but was not prioritized and was thus not voted on in time. It is likely that we will see this issue again, as Judge Cassell has been active in this policy space for many years and has been involved in the failed affirmative consent legislation.

OTHER JUDICIARY BILLS

PASSED BILLS

SB 204 Right to Appeal Amendments addresses injunctions and the enjoinder of laws challenged on constitutionality. Specifically, the bill provides that in situations in which the court enters into an injunction delaying enforcement of the law and the government appeals, that injunction is no longer in effect. SJR 9 Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions from the same sponsor amends requirements to file for an injunction of state law to require the filing within 45 days before a state law takes effect.

SJR 3 Joint Resolution Dissolving Salt Lake County Justice Court passed. As summed up in the title, this bill dissolves the Salt Lake County justice court no later than June 30, 2027 and moves their caseload to the Third District Court (unless the County makes different arrangements before then). This change was requested by Salt Lake County.

FAILED BILLS

HB 451 Judicial Election Amendments would have required 67% yes votes for a justice or judge to be retained in a judicial retention election.

HB 512 Judicial Retention Changes would have created the Joint Legislative Committee on Judicial Performance and allowed them to evaluate a judge and provide a retention recommendation to the public. This was another attempt to take more legislative control over the Judiciary, providing that members of the committee be appointed by the House Speaker and the Senate President. There were many concerns raised this year that JPEC evaluations are unintelligible to the public and that the Legislature needs to find a better way to inform the public about justice/judge performance. We will likely be dealing with this issue over the interim.

SB 109 Judicial Officer Amendments would have increased the number of judges for the district court, the juvenile court, and the Court of Appeals by one. We are concerned that this bill did not pass when the Salt Lake County’s Third District Court is expected to take over all of the Salt Lake County Justice Court’s cases.

SB 296 Judicial Amendments provides that the Governor shall appoint a chief justice of the Utah Supreme Court, to be confirmed by the Senate. Although this passed the vote in both bodies of the Legislature, Governor Cox vetoed this bill. The Governor explained that although he could be supportive of this process mirroring the federal system, he is against going through this process every 4 years as the bill dictates. In his letter explaining the decision, he said that “just because I disagree with the court, does not mean that the system is broken or corrupted.” We are tracking this bill to see if the Legislature overrides the veto. You can read the whole letter here: https://governor.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025-Veto-Letter-SB-296-03252025.pdf.