Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge finds probable cause in Allen stalking matter after witness identifies email
Summary
At a preliminary hearing in Lehi, a witness identified an email she says was sent by Mark Allen in violation of a protective order; the judge found probable cause and set arraignment for Sept. 5 at 1:30 p.m.
Get email alerts on the Criminal Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A preliminary hearing in the Allen matter in Lehi heard testimony Wednesday that a protective (stalking) injunction was in place and that a December 2018 email the prosecution says came from the defendant was consistent with prior communications. Alicia Koehler, the witness, testified that she recognized the email and that the protective order prohibited any contact, including by email.
The prosecutor presented a protective order the witness said she holds and identified as State's Exhibit 1, and a proof of service offered as State's Exhibit 2; both were received by the court. The prosecution also introduced an email dated Dec. 21, 2018 as State's Exhibit 3. Koehler testified, "That is the email he sent to me on 12/21/2018," and said the sender name and address and the tone matched previous messages she associated with the defendant.
Defense counsel challenged the authenticity of the single email and argued there was no evidence proving the email was the defendant's account. Defense counsel said, "Our argument is that it's not his email and there has been no evidence to offer that they can prove it is his email." The prosecutor replied that the standard at a preliminary hearing is probable cause and asked the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
After hearing argument and reviewing the amended information charging stalking with priors, the judge stated that stalking may be established by violating an existing stalking injunction and concluded, "I find the state has made its burden of proof." The court declined to accept a plea at the hearing and set arraignment for Sept. 5 at 1:30 p.m. Defense counsel indicated the defendant's work schedule made later availability necessary and asked for that date.
The State moved to withdraw its exhibits at the close of the hearing and the parties concluded the morning's matters. The matter was continued to the scheduled arraignment date.
