One of the important rights that criminal defendants enjoy in Utah is the right to a preliminary hearing. At this critical hearing, the State is required to prove that there is enough evidence to justify the defendant’s detention (if the defendant is in custody), and to justify a trial on the charges levied against the defendant. The evidentiary standard at this hearing is known as probable cause.
If the State cannot meet its burden of proof, the charges are dismissed. Thus, the preliminary hearing serves as a screening process, allowing magistrates and judges to weed out and dismiss unfounded criminal charges before spending the State’s resources on an needless criminal trials. Furthermore, the right to a preliminary hearing and the attendant burden of proof on the State are valuable chips at the plea bargaining table, chips that can often be traded for concessions that benefit both the defendant and the State.
Preliminary hearing is a right based in article I, section 13 of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court recently addressed the question whether the right to preliminary hearing applies to class A misdemeanor offenses in its unanimous opinion in State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70.
The Hernandez opinion, authored by Justice Parrish, makes clear that article I, section 13 of the Utah Constitution guarantees the right to a preliminary hearing to defendants charged with class A misdemeanor crimes. The opinion focuses on the language of article I, section 13 which provides that “[o]ffenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate.”
The opinion is a model of systematic analysis. First, the Court classifies criminal charges qualifying as “offenses heretofore required by be prosecuted by indictment,” and then determines what type of proceeding is required by the expression “examination and commitment by a magistrate.”
The Court relies on the plain meaning of the words “offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment,” to hold that the clause refers to crimes, whether felonies or misdemeanors, that were required to be prosecuted by indictment before the adoption of the Utah Constitution. On this point, the Court acknowledges that the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution, which was was applicable to the Utah territory at the time the Utah Constitution was drafted, only required that felony offenses be prosecuted by indictment.
However, analysis of the Utah Constitution and the debates of the Utah Constitutional Convention indicate that article I, section 13 was intended to refer to the requirements of Utah territorial law in addition to federal constitutional requirements. And Utah territorial law, the Court notes, extended the guarantee of prosecution by indictment to misdemeanors punishable by more than six months in the city or county jail.
In addition, since Utah territorial law classified crimes according to their associated punishments, and not their elements, the territorial law would have extended the right to prosecution by indictment to all present day class A misdemeanors (which are punishable by imprisonment in excess of six months) even though many present day misdemeanor crimes not exist under territorial law. In essence, “the drafters intended to provide article I, section 13 protection to all individuals who were facing imprisonment terms of more than six months.” Thus, the Court holds that class A misdemeanor crimes are “offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment.”
The Court then analyzes the meaning of “examination and commitment,” and concludes that the plain meaning of this phrase refers to a preliminary hearing. The Court turns to the ever persuasive Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “examination,” which is given as “[t]he questioning of a witness under oath.” Reasoning that the questioning of witnesses connotes an evidentiary hearing, the Court holds that “examination and commitment” refers to an evidentiary hearing.
For further support on this point, the Court again turns to Utah territorial law. Under the territorial law, the prosecution of an indictable offense required an “examination of the case,” which required the magistrate to find probable cause by weighing evidence and “examining the witnesses.”
Additionally, the Court finds evidence in the debates of the Utah Constitution that the concept of examination, as used in the Utah Constitution, connoted the questioning of witnesses. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that there is ample support for its holding that “examination and commitment” means a preliminary hearing. Thus, the Court ultimately concludes that article I, section 13 guarantees a right to preliminary hearing for class A misdemeanor offenses.
Perhaps the most interesting aspects of Hernandez are the State’s arguments in support of its position that class A misdemeanor defendants are not entitled to preliminary hearings under Article I, Section 13. For example, the Court notes that “[t]he State argues that even if article I, section 13 applies to Class A misdemeanors, it does not require a preliminary hearing. The State reasons that this section merely requires magistrate review of an affidavit sworn to by a person having reason to believe that the offense has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted).
In other words, article I section 13 is satisfied by a judge’s review of the affidavit of probable cause attached to an information. The implication of this argument is that the Utah Constitution does not guarantee the right to a preliminary hearing for any crime, whether felony or misdemeanor. While it is unlikely that the State intended to aver that the Court ought to read the right to preliminary hearing out of the Utah Constitution entirely, this argument is nonetheless troubling.
If the State cannot meet its burden of proof, the charges are dismissed. Thus, the preliminary hearing serves as a screening process, allowing magistrates and judges to weed out and dismiss unfounded criminal charges before spending the State’s resources on an needless criminal trials. Furthermore, the right to a preliminary hearing and the attendant burden of proof on the State are valuable chips at the plea bargaining table, chips that can often be traded for concessions that benefit both the defendant and the State.
Preliminary hearing is a right based in article I, section 13 of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court recently addressed the question whether the right to preliminary hearing applies to class A misdemeanor offenses in its unanimous opinion in State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70.
The Hernandez opinion, authored by Justice Parrish, makes clear that article I, section 13 of the Utah Constitution guarantees the right to a preliminary hearing to defendants charged with class A misdemeanor crimes. The opinion focuses on the language of article I, section 13 which provides that “[o]ffenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate.”
The opinion is a model of systematic analysis. First, the Court classifies criminal charges qualifying as “offenses heretofore required by be prosecuted by indictment,” and then determines what type of proceeding is required by the expression “examination and commitment by a magistrate.”
The Court relies on the plain meaning of the words “offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment,” to hold that the clause refers to crimes, whether felonies or misdemeanors, that were required to be prosecuted by indictment before the adoption of the Utah Constitution. On this point, the Court acknowledges that the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution, which was was applicable to the Utah territory at the time the Utah Constitution was drafted, only required that felony offenses be prosecuted by indictment.
However, analysis of the Utah Constitution and the debates of the Utah Constitutional Convention indicate that article I, section 13 was intended to refer to the requirements of Utah territorial law in addition to federal constitutional requirements. And Utah territorial law, the Court notes, extended the guarantee of prosecution by indictment to misdemeanors punishable by more than six months in the city or county jail.
In addition, since Utah territorial law classified crimes according to their associated punishments, and not their elements, the territorial law would have extended the right to prosecution by indictment to all present day class A misdemeanors (which are punishable by imprisonment in excess of six months) even though many present day misdemeanor crimes not exist under territorial law. In essence, “the drafters intended to provide article I, section 13 protection to all individuals who were facing imprisonment terms of more than six months.” Thus, the Court holds that class A misdemeanor crimes are “offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment.”
The Court then analyzes the meaning of “examination and commitment,” and concludes that the plain meaning of this phrase refers to a preliminary hearing. The Court turns to the ever persuasive Black’s Law Dictionary for the definition of “examination,” which is given as “[t]he questioning of a witness under oath.” Reasoning that the questioning of witnesses connotes an evidentiary hearing, the Court holds that “examination and commitment” refers to an evidentiary hearing.
For further support on this point, the Court again turns to Utah territorial law. Under the territorial law, the prosecution of an indictable offense required an “examination of the case,” which required the magistrate to find probable cause by weighing evidence and “examining the witnesses.”
Additionally, the Court finds evidence in the debates of the Utah Constitution that the concept of examination, as used in the Utah Constitution, connoted the questioning of witnesses. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that there is ample support for its holding that “examination and commitment” means a preliminary hearing. Thus, the Court ultimately concludes that article I, section 13 guarantees a right to preliminary hearing for class A misdemeanor offenses.
Perhaps the most interesting aspects of Hernandez are the State’s arguments in support of its position that class A misdemeanor defendants are not entitled to preliminary hearings under Article I, Section 13. For example, the Court notes that “[t]he State argues that even if article I, section 13 applies to Class A misdemeanors, it does not require a preliminary hearing. The State reasons that this section merely requires magistrate review of an affidavit sworn to by a person having reason to believe that the offense has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted).
In other words, article I section 13 is satisfied by a judge’s review of the affidavit of probable cause attached to an information. The implication of this argument is that the Utah Constitution does not guarantee the right to a preliminary hearing for any crime, whether felony or misdemeanor. While it is unlikely that the State intended to aver that the Court ought to read the right to preliminary hearing out of the Utah Constitution entirely, this argument is nonetheless troubling.
No comments:
Post a Comment