Committee hears SB 105 on transferred-harm liability and justification hearings; sponsors seek working changes
Loading...
Summary
SB 105, aiming to clarify criminal charges when a third party is injured during claimed use of force, drew support from the Salt Lake County DA's office and criticism from shooting-sports and defense groups over removal of 'justification hearings.' No final vote was taken; sponsor said she will work with stakeholders.
SB 105, introduced by the sponsor during the same committee meeting, would clarify how prosecutors and courts handle cases in which a person acting in self-defense or defense-of-others injures an uninvolved third party. The sponsor said the proposal seeks to close a statutory silence exposed by a recent rally-related shooting and to provide clearer charges and faster process for affected parties.
Supporters: Brett Robinson, chief policy adviser for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, told the committee the office supports the bill because it provides statutory clarity for cases where collateral injuries occur during a claimed use-of-force. "It is clear that there was a gap in the law, and this clarifies it," he said.
Critics: Stakeholders including the Utah Shooting Sports Council and the Utah Defense Attorney Association expressed concern that one version of the bill removes the "justification hearing" that currently allows a judge to resolve at an early stage whether a defendant's use of force was lawful. "The justification hearing has worked fantastically... It allows a judge to determine early and very efficiently whether a defendant's use of force against an aggressor was lawful," said Clark Capotian (Utah Shooting Sports Council). The Defense Attorney Association warned removing that hearing could deny earlier judicial fact‑finding and increase litigation costs.
Sponsor response and next steps: The sponsor said she has two versions of the bill—one that retains the justification hearing and one that does not—and is willing to work with committee members to revise the language. With the clock running on the session the committee had limited time; no final committee vote occurred and the bill was left for a future agenda.
Why it matters: SB 105 addresses criminal-procedure and due‑process questions in cases where defensive actions harm third parties. Opponents framed the draft bill as risking the loss of an early judicial filter in criminal cases; supporters said it would provide necessary statutory guidance.
Quotes from the hearing: "This gives greater clarity for both individuals who are using force in defense of themselves and those people who might be injured," Brett Robinson said for the district attorney's office.
"The justification hearing has worked fantastically... It's not broken," said Clark Capotian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Next steps: Sponsor said she will revise language and return the bill to committee; the meeting adjourned before further action.
