Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates pretrial‑detention, mootness and 'substantial‑step' standard in State v. Gross
Summary
Appeals court heard competing views over whether a pretrial detention order should be reviewed: defense argued witnesses’ account of a man gesturing to a toddler did not show a substantial step toward kidnapping, while the State said totality of the evidence and subsequent preliminary‑hearing facts support continued detention and raise jurisdictional/mootness questions.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Gross on whether the court has jurisdiction to review the operative detention order and whether the detention hearing evidence established a "substantial step" toward attempted kidnapping.
"It is supposed to be hard, really, really hard to keep somebody detained prior to trial," defense counsel said in opening argument, summarizing the detention‑hearing record and stressing ambiguity in witness accounts about whether a toddler moved in response to a beckoning gesture.
Defense emphasized that the observed conduct — a man in a parked Tesla making a "come here" motion toward a toddler — allows multiple innocent inferences and may not amount to the substantial step required for attempted kidnapping; counsel also stressed that the defendant fled the scene after bystanders intervened, a fact that can be read in different ways.
State counsel countered that the court should examine the "totality of the evidence" and pointed to several aggravating facts: the defendant's registered status as a child‑sex‑offender, location adjacent to a playground, the vehicle's posture and open door, witness statements alleging a Spanish 'come here' phrase, a partial license‑plate capture that tied the car to the defendant, and the defendant's flight. The State also argued that the operative detention order was updated after a preliminary hearing (a May 6 order of clarification) and that the court lacks jurisdiction to review an order that was not timely appealed.
Panel members pressed both sides on procedure and substance: whether the May 6 clarification or an earlier April order controls the appeal, whether a party may appeal multiple detention orders in the same appellate docket, and how courts should treat subsequent trial‑court evidence when reviewing bail decisions that often become moot. Counsel told the panel the case is set for trial in mid‑January, which raised the urgency of resolving the detention appeal quickly.
Disposition: The court said it would take the matter under advisement and issue an opinion in short order.
