bail hearing in Utah

2025And, “[i]n light of the great gravity and delicacy of constitutional questions,” our court generally “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” State v. Argueta, 2020 UT 41, ¶ 55 , 469 P.3d 938 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Green, 2023 UT 10 , 532 P.3d 930 .

2025And, “[i]n light of the great gravity and delicacy of constitutional questions,” our court generally “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” State v. Argueta, 2020 UT 41, ¶ 55 , 469 P.3d 938 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Green, 2023 UT 10 , 532 P.3d 930 .

2025Although Houston and Jennings were not blood relatives, Jennings had been known to call Houston his “uncle,” and Houston had been known to call Jennings his “nephew.” ¶6 Police followed a trail of blood from the apartment where they found Houston, down the sidewalk, in and around Houston’s __________________________________________________________ 1 These background facts are taken from the preliminary hearing record, which the State relied on at the bail hearing. 2 Cite as: 2025 UT 1 Opinion of the Court car, and back to the scene of the crime: the apartment that Houston shared with Jennings’

2025He reasons that even if the State proved every element of first-degree murder at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury could not convict him if self-defense was at issue and the State failed to disprove it. 12 Cite as: 2025 UT 1 Opinion of the Court ¶49 The State argues that it has no burden to disprove self-defense, or any other affirmative defense, at a bail hearing.

2025And, “[i]n light of the great gravity and delicacy of constitutional questions,” our court generally “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” State v. Argueta, 2020 UT 41, ¶ 55 , 469 P.3d 938 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Green, 2023 UT 10 , 532 P.3d 930 .

2025And, “[i]n light of the great gravity and delicacy of constitutional questions,” our court generally “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” State v. Argueta, 2020 UT 41, ¶ 55 , 469 P.3d 938 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Green, 2023 UT 10 , 532 P.3d 930 .

2024Ultimately, “[t]he district court’s task is to decide whether the State has, even in light of the defendant’s contrary evidence, placed into the record evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the defendant committed the charged offense.” Randolph, 2022 UT 34, ¶ 77 . ¶45 In examining whether substantial evidence exists to support a charge, a district court must of course keep in mind the elements of the relevant charge.

2022But, to be clear, the substantial evidence standard applied at a bail hearing and the probable cause standard applied at a preliminary hearing are different. ¶71 Article I, section 12 of the Utah Constitution “limit[s] ‘the function of [a preliminary hearing] . . . to determining whether probable cause exists.’” State v. Goins, 2017 UT 61, ¶ 31 , 423 P.3d 1236 (third alteration in original) (citing UTAH CONST. art.

2022But, to be clear, the substantial evidence standard applied at a bail hearing and the probable cause standard applied at a preliminary hearing are different. ¶71 Article I, section 12 of the Utah Constitution “limit[s] ‘the function of [a preliminary hearing] . . . to determining whether probable cause exists.’” State v. Goins, 2017 UT 61, ¶ 31 , 423 P.3d 1236 (third alteration in original) (citing UTAH CONST. art.

2022The statement also indicated that Silveira attempted to cover up this abuse by telling Ruby “not to tell anyone about this.” And at the bail hearing, Silveira stated that he would be spending time around his girlfriend’s child, whom he referred to as his “quasi stepchild.” 20210421-CA 11 2022 UT App 78 State v. Silveira ¶21 Here, there is evidence that Silveira presented a substantial danger, at the very least, to his girlfriend’s child.

2019Spackman” simply because, under article I, section 26 of the Utah Constitution, the bail clause is to be read as “mandatory and prohibitory,” and therefore must be self-executing.19 This assertion is not enough.20 In addition to demonstrating that a constitutional provision is prohibitory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the framers intended the clause to be both “judicially . . . defined and enforced” without implementing legislation.21 This requires “careful analysis of the precise terms” in the provision and the framer’s original meaning of those terms.22 Because Mr. Kuchcinski completely

2017See, e.g., State v. Ricks, 2014 UT App 85, ¶ 6 , 325 P.3d 845 (per curiam) (concluding that a court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing a defendant with mental health issues when it ordered “a prison term with a further recommendation that she be considered by the parole board for release to the treatment program”); State v. Ward, 2012 UT App 346 , ¶¶ 3—4, 293 P.3d 399 (per curiam) (concluding that a court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing a defendant with bipolar disorder and a criminal history consisting only of misdemeanors when it ordered prison and recommended to the Board

2017See, e.g., State v. Ricks, 2014 UT App 85, ¶ 6 , 325 P.3d 845 (per curiam) (concluding that a court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing a defendant with mental health issues when it ordered “a prison term with a further recommendation that she be considered by the parole board for release to the treatment program”); State v. Ward, 2012 UT App 346 , ¶¶ 3—4, 293 P.3d 399 (per curiam) (concluding that a court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing a defendant with bipolar disorder and a criminal history consisting only of misdemeanors when it ordered prison and recommended to the Board

1993In directing the procedure to be taken by trial courts with respect to bail in capital cases, this court adopted in Chynoweth the language of State v. Obstein, 52 N.J. 516 , 247 A.2d 5 (1968): 4 The bail hearing before the trial court is not a unilateral one.

1993In directing the procedure to be taken by trial courts with respect to bail in capital cases, this court adopted in Chynoweth the language of State v. Obstein, 52 N.J. 516 , 247 A.2d 5 (1968): 4 The bail hearing before the trial court is not a unilateral one.