Utah Supreme Court weighs standard of review in State v. Wilcox; case turns on video, timing and statute

The Utah Supreme Court heard argument in State v. Wilcox on whether appellate courts should review a district court's determination under the state's pretrial justification statute with de novo review or with greater deference, and whether the district court erred in dismissing an aggravated child abuse charge against a tennis coach who restrained a player after a slap.

The state, represented by Lindsay Wheeler, told the court the case presents two issues on appeal: the proper standard of review for the second step of the pretrial justification statute and whether the district court wrongly dismissed the aggravated child abuse and communication device charges. Wheeler said the court should give little deference to the district court's ultimate legal conclusions so the law on imminence, necessity and proportionality is uniform across districts. "The strangulation statute ... it's any impediment of the neck that restricts breathing," Wheeler said while arguing the video evidence and photographs supported reversal.

Why it matters: the court's choice of standard will affect how future pretrial justification hearings are reviewed statewide. Under the statute the defendant must first produce sufficient evidence to raise the defense; if that threshold is met the state must then disprove justification by clear and convincing evidence. How an appellate court reviews the district court's factfinding and the mixed legal questions…