Utah Senate advances victims'rights constitutional amendment and implementing statute to third reading

Senator Craig Peterson introduced a constitutional amendment, SJR 6, and described it as "a modification of our constitution to bring into balance the issue of the rights of the victims of crime as well as the rights of the accused of crimes." The resolution would add a declaration of victims' rights into the Utah Constitution and make those rights operative throughout criminal proceedings.

On the Senate floor Peterson said the amendment "preserve[s] and protect[ ] victims' rights to justice and due process, and to be free from harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice process." He urged colleagues the change was meant to codify protections already sought in practice, including the option to shield victims from repeated courtroom testimony.

Senators debated several committee and floor amendments that narrow the measure'notably language clarifying that "reliable hearsay" may be used in certain preliminary proceedings if defined by statute or rule rather than by courts. Opponents cautioned this change could expand hearsay use. "I am just a little uneasy about this provision on the allowance of hearsay evidence," said Senator Stevenson, who said the move to permit hearsay at preliminary hearings raises constitutional and fairness concerns for the accused.

Sponsor Lyle Hilliard and others defended the change as narrowly tailored. Hilliard said the amendments were intended to prevent cases in which victims would be required to testify repeatedly in traumatic circumstances and to allow the legislature or rules committees to define the limited hearsay exceptions prospectively.

Alongside the constitutional resolution the Judiciary Committee reported SB 156, a statutory package to implement victims' rights. SB 156 would require that a pre-sentence investigation include a victim impact statement "describing the effect of the crime on the victim and the victim's family," and instructs courts to consider victims' scheduling and participation needs. Senator Peterson asked that the statutory language be spread on the journals and noted the bill codifies many existing practices while creating new procedural options for victims.

After extended debate and several recorded amendments, the Senate approved a roll-call and moved both measures to the third-reading calendar: SJR 6 passed the roll call with 27 present and no nays; SB 156 passed to third reading with the vote reported as 25 ayes and no nays. Both measures will return to the Senate for final passage on third reading.

The record shows committee chairs and supporters argued the proposal reflects endorsements from victims' groups and prosecutors, while several senators urged caution about altering evidentiary rules at the constitutional level. No final changes to statutory implementing language other than the committee-reported amendments were adopted on the floor; sponsors indicated further technical work and a companion bill (SJR 7) addressing rules of evidence was under consideration.