Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victims Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House narrows victims'rights constitutional language, adds discovery safeguard on hearsay at preliminary hearings
Summary
Lawmakers debated whether hearsay should be used at preliminary hearings and adopted an amendment to permit hearsay while preserving "appropriate" discovery; supporters said it spares victims retraumatization, opponents warned the term is vague. The amendment passed 41'20 and the resolution advanced to the Senate.
SALT LAKE CITY — On March 2, 1994, the Utah House spent the opening hours of its floor session debating a proposed constitutional amendment to enshrine victims' rights and whether hearsay evidence should be admissible at preliminary hearings. Lawmakers adopted an amendment that inserts the phrase "if appropriate discovery is allowed," a change supporters said would protect victims while allowing courts and prosecutors to preserve defendants' ability to prepare a defense.
The amendment was the focal point of a prolonged exchange. Proponents, including Representative Harwood in summation, argued that the current preliminary-hearing practice can retraumatize victims who must appear in court and face aggressive cross-examination. "Let's take the victim out of the preliminary hearing," Harwood said in his closing remarks, urging judges to admit narrow, documented hearsay while letting discovery procedures supply facts to both sides.
Opponents warned that the phrase "appropriate discovery" was undefined and could create uncertainty. One lawmaker noted that hearsay is defined in Utah rules of evidence and cautioned against embedding vague language in the state constitution. Others raised concerns that allowing hearsay might permit accusations to be repeated in court without giving defendants the opportunity to cross-examine original declarants.
The House approved the discovery-safeguard amendment by recorded vote, 41 yes to 20 no. Following debate and sponsor summation, the broader victims' rights resolution was advanced by the House and sent to the Senate for further consideration.
Why it matters: The change directly affects the procedure used to determine probable cause in criminal cases by clarifying when out-of-court statements may be relied on at the preliminary stage. Supporters contend it reduces additional harm to witnesses and victims; critics say constitutional language should be precise and that statutory fixes could address implementation details.
What comes next: The resolution will be considered by the Senate. If enacted as a constitutional amendment, the provision would require implementing legislation to define "appropriate discovery" and to establish the procedures judges and prosecutors must follow.
Sources and provenance: The article is based on the House floor debate and recorded roll calls during the March 2, 1994 session (opening debate through the Harwood amendment and subsequent House action).
