State v. Clark
20 P.3d 300, 2001 UT 9, 414 Utah Adv. Rep. 10 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The probable cause standard required for binding a defendant over for trial at a preliminary hearing is a 'reasonable belief' that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, equating it with the arrest warrant standard and establishing it as a lower burden than the directed verdict standard.
Facts:
- On the morning of September 28, 1998, someone broke into Michelle Waldie's car at Draper City Park and stole a book of her checks, leading her to quickly notify her bank.
- Later that day, Cory H. Smith drove to a First Security Bank and attempted to cash one of Waldie's recently stolen checks for $400, made out to him.
- Smith provided a Utah identification card and a fingerprint, which were recorded on the check by the teller, Susan Paskett.
- Paskett discovered a hold on the account and, after consulting her supervisor, Tonya Lindsay, confirmed the check was reported stolen, prompting Lindsay to call the police.
- After approximately five minutes, Smith approached Lindsay's desk, asked 'What's the problem?', and then exited the bank, leaving the check behind.
- On July 1, 1998, Syd Page discovered a book of her checks had been stolen from her workplace, and she informed her bank, Zions First National Bank.
- Later that day, John L. Clark entered a Zions branch and attempted to cash one of Page's recently stolen checks.
- Clark presented a Utah identification card and allowed the teller, Travis Colledge, to take his fingerprint, before Colledge discovered the check had been reported stolen and told Clark there was a problem with the account.
- Clark then left the bank, taking his identification card but leaving the check behind.
Procedural Posture:
- Cory H. Smith was arrested and charged with forgery and attempted theft by deception, and John L. Clark was arrested and charged with forgery.
- After preliminary hearings, magistrates in both cases bound Smith and Clark over for trial.
- Smith filed a motion in the district court to quash the bindover, arguing insufficient evidence of the knowledge required for forgery.
- The district court agreed with Smith, quashed the bindover, and dismissed the charges against him, concluding the State failed to demonstrate 'probable cause'.
- Clark filed a motion in the district court to quash the bindover, arguing insufficient evidence of the intent and knowledge required for forgery.
- The district court agreed with Clark, quashed the bindover, and dismissed the forgery charge against him, concluding the State failed to demonstrate 'probable cause'.
- The State appealed both district court decisions to the Supreme Court of Utah, and the appeals were consolidated due to the similarity of issues presented.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the probable cause standard required for binding a defendant over for trial at a preliminary hearing necessitate evidence capable of supporting a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a lower standard of proof, such as a 'reasonable belief,' sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Durrant, Justice
No, the probable cause standard required for binding a defendant over for trial at a preliminary hearing does not necessitate evidence capable of supporting a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, a "reasonable belief" that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it is sufficient. The Court clarified the probable cause standard for preliminary hearings, noting that prior interpretations, especially its comparison to the directed verdict and preponderance of evidence standards, had created confusion. It explicitly rejected the notion that the preliminary hearing standard is equivalent to the directed verdict standard, which requires evidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the Court held that the quantum of evidence required at a preliminary hearing is the same as that for an arrest warrant: sufficient evidence to support a "reasonable belief" that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. This standard is lower than the preponderance of the evidence standard applicable in civil cases and aims to allow magistrates to effectively "ferret out groundless and improvident prosecutions" without improperly weighing conflicting evidence, a task reserved for the fact-finder at trial. Applying this clarified "reasonable belief" standard, the Court determined that the facts presented at the preliminary hearings—Smith and Clark attempting to cash recently stolen checks, providing identification, and then abandoning the checks when confronted or delayed—were sufficient to support a reasonable inference that they acted "with purpose to defraud anyone, or with knowledge that [they were] facilitating a fraud." Therefore, the district courts' decisions to quash the bindovers were reversed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and arguably lowers the evidentiary burden required for a preliminary hearing bindover in Utah, aligning it with the less rigorous probable cause standard for arrest warrants. By definitively separating the preliminary hearing standard from the higher directed verdict standard, the Court streamlines the early stages of criminal proceedings. This ruling makes it easier for prosecutors to advance cases past the preliminary hearing, as magistrates are now primarily tasked with screening out truly groundless prosecutions rather than evaluating the ultimate strength of the evidence for conviction. This shift reinforces the preliminary hearing's role as a gatekeeping mechanism rather than a mini-trial, impacting prosecutorial strategy and potentially leading to more cases reaching the trial stage.
