Appeals court hears dispute over "substantial danger" finding, jurisdiction and procedures in pretrial detention appeal
Loading...
Summary
The Court of Appeals heard arguments about whether a district court made the required clear-and-convincing finding of "substantial danger" before denying bail and whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the later orders.
The Utah Court of Appeals on Thursday considered an appeal challenging a district court—s handling of pretrial detention for a defendant identified as Mr. Stubbs. Appellant counsel argued the district court failed to make the statutory finding of "clear and convincing evidence of a substantial danger" before denying bail and did not adequately consider available conditions of release; the state urged the appeals court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to affirm.
Wendy Brown, arguing for the appellant, told the panel that the district court never used the required statutory language and that omission matters: "The bail statute has to be applied very strictly," she said, adding the record lacks the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" and the specific finding of "substantial danger." Brown asked for reversal and a new bail proceeding to ensure the statutory requirements and consideration of release conditions are applied.
Aubrey Bisbee, for the state, urged dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or affirmation. Bisbee told the panel the case differs from Gross (a prior case the court has heard) in relevant procedural respects and that the district court did make a finding of "no material change in circumstances," which she argued justified the denial of modification. Bisbee also noted that the docket contains later orders and argued that the procedural posture complicates an appeal under the expedited-bail statute.
Judges pressed both sides on multiple points. The panel asked whether a later order filed by the district court (referenced in briefing and the record) should be treated as a new appealable decision. Brown said the later order repeated the same findings and did not cure the omission of the statutory language; she also pointed to a January 4, 2022 transcript in the record she said showed prior detention findings. Bisbee argued Gross and the statutory framework require a different analysis and that a modification motion that results in a denial may not be appealable under the expedited-bail statute in the same way as an original denial of bail.
The argument addressed the statutory sequence the parties debated: (1) the district court—s initial 2.01 findings denying bail, (2) a modification motion under Rule 207 requiring a showing of a material change in circumstances, and (3) whether the court properly considered available pretrial release conditions before denying release. Brown argued the record shows the court did not perform the statutorily required, individualized consideration of conditions and instead delegated the search for workable conditions to the parties.
Bisbee countered that the district court—s written order explicitly states it found no material change in circumstances and that even if the panel exercised jurisdiction it should affirm because the district court—s findings addressed the statutory concerns. She also argued that Gross is distinguishable because that case involved a preliminary hearing and newly presented evidence supporting the modification, while the present matter returned to the district court on the same facts.
Ending: The panel took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a decision.
