bindover standard in Utah

2026“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up). 20240145‐CA 6 2026 UT App 38 State v. Murphy ANALYSIS ¶8 “A defendant may be bound over for trial only if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the charged crimes were committed.” State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8 , 289 P.3d 444 (cleaned up); accord State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 20 , 137 P.3d 787 ; see also Utah R.

2026“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up). 20240145‐CA 6 2026 UT App 38 State v. Murphy ANALYSIS ¶8 “A defendant may be bound over for trial only if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the charged crimes were committed.” State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8 , 289 P.3d 444 (cleaned up); accord State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 20 , 137 P.3d 787 ; see also Utah R.

2020A “decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” In re I.R.C., 2010 UT 41, ¶ 12 , 232 P.3d 1040 (quotation simplified).

2020A “decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” In re I.R.C., 2010 UT 41, ¶ 12 , 232 P.3d 1040 (quotation simplified).

2026“A decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” State v. Smith, 2022 UT App 82, ¶ 8 , 514 P.3d 620 (cleaned up), aff’d, 2024 UT 13 , 548 P.3d 874 .

2026“A decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” State v. Smith, 2022 UT App 82, ¶ 8 , 514 P.3d 620 (cleaned up), aff’d, 2024 UT 13 , 548 P.3d 874 .

2012ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 The State challenges the magistrate's decision at the preliminary hearing that it had presented insufficient evidence to bind Maughan over for trial. "'This matter presents a mixed question of law and fact because a decision to bind a defendant over for trial includes the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the facts presented in [this] case'" State v. Droesbeke, 2010 UT App 275, ¶ 14 , 241 P.3d 772 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ingram, 2006 UT App 237, ¶ 11 , 139 P.3d 286 ).

2012ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW T8 The State challenges the magistrate's decision at the preliminary hearing that it had presented insufficient evidence to bind Maughan over for trial. "'This matter presents a mixed question of law and fact because a decision to bind a defendant over for trial includes the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the facts presented in [this] case'" State v. Droesbeke, 2010 UT App 275, ¶ 14 , 241 P.3d 772 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ingram, 2006 UT App 237, ¶ 11 , 139 P.3d 286 ).

2026Ordinarily, a bindover determination “presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the 20240990-CA 5 2026 UT App 49 State v. Elliott underlying factual findings.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 485 P.3d 946 (Utah 2021).

2026We also ordinarily “give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” Id. (quotation simplified).

2026“A decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” State v. Smith, 2022 UT App 82, ¶ 8 , 514 P.3d 620 (cleaned up), aff’d, 2024 UT 13 , 548 P.3d 874 .

2026“A decision to bind over a criminal defendant for trial presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the underlying factual findings.” State v. Smith, 2022 UT App 82, ¶ 8 , 514 P.3d 620 (cleaned up), aff’d, 2024 UT 13 , 548 P.3d 874 .

2026But here, because Elliott did not file a brief or otherwise appear in this appeal, that is not the governing standard. ¶16 An appellee’s “failure to file a brief” is not “a confession of error on the part of the appellee,” nor does it “amount to an automatic default and consequent reversal of the lower court.” AL-IN Partners, LLC v. LifeVantage Corp., 2021 UT 42, ¶ 19 , 496 P.3d 76 (quotation simplified).

2026But here, because Elliott did not file a brief or otherwise appear in this appeal, that is not the governing standard. ¶16 An appellee’s “failure to file a brief” is not “a confession of error on the part of the appellee,” nor does it “amount to an automatic default and consequent reversal of the lower court.” AL-IN Partners, LLC v. LifeVantage Corp., 2021 UT 42, ¶ 19 , 496 P.3d 76 (quotation simplified).

2026“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up). 20240145‐CA 6 2026 UT App 38 State v. Murphy ANALYSIS ¶8 “A defendant may be bound over for trial only if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the charged crimes were committed.” State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8 , 289 P.3d 444 (cleaned up); accord State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 20 , 137 P.3d 787 ; see also Utah R.

2026“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up). 20240145‐CA 6 2026 UT App 38 State v. Murphy ANALYSIS ¶8 “A defendant may be bound over for trial only if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the charged crimes were committed.” State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8 , 289 P.3d 444 (cleaned up); accord State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 20 , 137 P.3d 787 ; see also Utah R.

2026Ordinarily, a bindover determination “presents a mixed question of law and fact and requires the application of the appropriate bindover standard to the 20240990-CA 5 2026 UT App 49 State v. Elliott underlying factual findings.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 485 P.3d 946 (Utah 2021).

2025Notably, the court itself recognized that the State had yet to file any motion at that point, stating that it could not “change [the release conditions] more strictly without a motion from the State” and without affording Dowhaniuk “a chance to respond.” It is simply not fair to Dowhaniuk to expect him to have anticipated, in advance, that the State would file a motion and to have raised specific theories in response to that motion before it had even been filed. 20250013-CA 10 2025 UT App 100 State v. Dowhaniuk ¶23 In short, Dowhaniuk had no reasonable opportunity to raise to the district cour

2024“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (quotation simplified). 20230430-CA 6 2024 UT App 133 Bountiful City v. Swenson ANALYSIS ¶14 “To support the bindover of a defendant for trial, the prosecution must put forward enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.” State v. Graham, 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8 , 302 P.3d 824 .

2024“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (quotation simplified). 20230430-CA 6 2024 UT App 133 Bountiful City v. Swenson ANALYSIS ¶14 “To support the bindover of a defendant for trial, the prosecution must put forward enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.” State v. Graham, 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8 , 302 P.3d 824 .

2024In the bindover context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Glosenger, 2022 UT App 129, ¶ 13 , 521 P.3d 915 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1267 (Utah 2023).

2024In the bindover context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Glosenger, 2022 UT App 129, ¶ 13 , 521 P.3d 915 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1267 (Utah 2023).

2024“In this context, appellate courts give limited deference to a magistrate’s application of the bindover standard to the facts of each case.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 18 , 479 P.3d 1126 (quotation simplified). 20230430-CA 6 2024 UT App 133 Bountiful City v. Swenson ANALYSIS ¶14 “To support the bindover of a defendant for trial, the prosecution must put forward enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.” State v. Graham, 2013 UT App 109, ¶ 8 , 302 P.3d 824 .

2022“An entrapment ruling involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Hatchett, 2020 UT App 61, ¶ 10 , 462 P.3d 1288 .

2022“An entrapment ruling involves a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Hatchett, 2020 UT App 61, ¶ 10 , 462 P.3d 1288 .

2022Viewed in the light most favorable to the State and including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, Glosenger’s description of the collision is sufficient to support a conclusion that she was driving recklessly. ¶21 Some evidence was presented that may support a verdict at trial in Glosenger’s favor (including that at the time of the collision she “was going the speed limit,” “[h]er medication was within therapeutic range,” “[s]he wasn’t on her cell phone,” and there was no indication that there was a “mechanical failure”), but “the liberal bindover standard does not authorize

2022Viewed in the light most favorable to the State and including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, Glosenger’s description of the collision is sufficient to support a conclusion that she was driving recklessly. ¶21 Some evidence was presented that may support a verdict at trial in Glosenger’s favor (including that at the time of the collision she “was going the speed limit,” “[h]er medication was within therapeutic range,” “[s]he wasn’t on her cell phone,” and there was no indication that there was a “mechanical failure”), but “the liberal bindover standard does not authorize

2016"The bindover standard is intended to leave the principal fact finding to the jury." State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 21 , 137 P.3d 787 . €29 "The determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the fact-finder at trial." State v. Aleh, 2015 UT App 195, ¶ 15 , 357 P.3d 12 (citing Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 21 , 137 P.3d 787 ).

2016"The bindover standard is intended to leave the principal fact finding to the jury." State v. Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 21 , 137 P.3d 787 . €29 "The determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the fact-finder at trial." State v. Aleh, 2015 UT App 195, ¶ 15 , 357 P.3d 12 (citing Virgin, 2006 UT 29, ¶ 21 , 137 P.3d 787 ).

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016Accordingly, "an error at the preliminary stage is cured if the defendant is later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Thomas v. State, 2002 UT 128, ¶ 7 , 63 P.3d 672 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., State v. Hernandez, 2011 UT 70 , ¶ 29 n. 3, 268 P.3d 822 ; State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 20 , 167 P.3d 1046 ; State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 26 , 128 P.3d 1171 ; State v. Quas, 837 P.2d 565, 566 (Utah Ct.App.1992). 430 We agree with the State.

2016A third, alternative charge to the official misconduct charge-official neglect and misconduct-was not included in the State's petition for certiorari, and is thus not before this court. 3 . - See State v. Schmidt, 2015 UT 65, ¶¶ 21-22 , 356 P.3d 1204 (clarifying that the bindover standard requires only a reasonable basis for an arrest, "not a reasonable basis for a conviction" at trial). 4 .

2016A third, alternative charge to the official misconduct charge-official neglect and misconduct-was not included in the State's petition for certiorari, and is thus not before this court. 3 . - See State v. Schmidt, 2015 UT 65, ¶¶ 21-22 , 356 P.3d 1204 (clarifying that the bindover standard requires only a reasonable basis for an arrest, "not a reasonable basis for a conviction" at trial). 4 .

2013State v. Maughan, 2013 UT 37, ¶ 14 , 305 P.3d 1058 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2013State v. Maughan, 2013 UT 37, ¶ 14 , 305 P.3d 1058 (internal quotation marks omitted).