The Utah Supreme Court convened on November 4, 2024, to hear oral arguments in the case of State v. Anderson, focusing on the interpretation of the venue statute and the authority of county attorneys. The discussions centered on whether a county attorney from Salt Lake County could prosecute cases originating in Tooele County without explicit consent from the Tooele County Attorney.

The initial argument presented by the prosecution highlighted that the venue statute does not explicitly restrict a county attorney's authority to their own county. It was suggested that cross-deputization statutes could allow for such prosecutions, provided there is consent from the local county attorney. This mechanism was described as a safeguard against potential overreach by a county attorney into another jurisdiction.

A key concern raised during the proceedings was the potential for a Salt Lake County District Attorney to unilaterally decide to prosecute cases in Tooele County, which could undermine the authority of the locally elected Tooele County Attorney. The discussion emphasized the importance of consent and the checks and balances inherent in the system, noting that voters could hold their county attorney accountable through elections if they disagreed with such decisions.

The defense, represented by Laurie Sapio, argued that the venue statute clearly states that criminal actions should be tried in the county where the offense occurred. This interpretation was supported by a review of the statute's language, which consistently refers to "county" in its provisions.

As the arguments concluded, the court was urged to reverse the district court's decision, with the prosecution asserting that the case's venue did not violate statutory requirements. The justices are expected to deliberate on the implications of these arguments, which could set a precedent for the authority of county attorneys and the interpretation of venue statutes in Utah.