Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House tightens rules on prosecutor involvement in victim 11‑02 statements and requires corroboration for probable‑cause reliance
Summary
Lawmakers approved a third substitute to Senate Joint Resolution 6 limiting prosecutors' role in preparing out‑of‑court victim statements (11‑02 statements) and requiring corroborating evidence if such a statement is relied on to establish probable cause; supporters said the change restores a balance for defendants while protecting victims; vote 64–8.
The Utah House on March 3 adopted a third substitute to SJR 6 clarifying how 11‑02 (written out‑of‑court) statements may be used in preliminary examinations and restricting the extent to which prosecutors can prepare those statements.
Representative Abbott, speaking for the sponsor team, said the change is a narrowly tailored compromise produced after negotiations with prosecutors and defense counsel. Under the third substitute, if an 11‑02 statement is used to establish probable cause the prosecution must present corroborating evidence; if no corroboration exists, the declarant may need to appear. The amendment also limits prosecutors’ participation in preparing a victim’s 11‑02 statement so that prosecutors may assist but may not write the statement in whole or otherwise tamper with the witness.
Supporters argued the change does not create new defenses or make it easier for guilty persons to avoid charges but instead restores some of the procedural protections of the preliminary‑examination process. Representative Abbott and others said the modification was the result of careful bargaining among prosecutors, defense attorneys and legislators. Some members asked whether victim‑advocate groups had been consulted; the sponsor said he had worked primarily with prosecutors and defenders on the House side and had not engaged victim‑advocate groups directly during House drafting.
The House adopted the third substitute and recorded a final vote of 64 yes and 8 no. The resolution will be returned to the Senate for further consideration.
What happens next: the matter returns to the Senate for consideration; courts and prosecutors will need to interpret any changes to practices surrounding preliminary examinations and witness statements.
