7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brickeygreen2 sentences2004The Utah Supreme Court concluded that the State’s failure to call the second police officer as a witness during the first preliminary hearing “was an ‘innocent miscalculation,’ which [constituted] ‘other good cause, [Brickey, 714 P.2d at 647 ,] sufficient to allow the prosecutor to refile the case.” Morgan, 2001 UT 87 at ¶ 21 , 34 P.3d 767 . ¶ 15 In this case, there is no evidence that when the prosecutor misplaced her file, she was engaged in a “potential abusive practice[]” that would have implicated Defendant’s due process rights. 2001The magistrate responded that the motion should be filed with the trial judge. 17 At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that because the second officer was sworn and available at the first preliminary hearing, his testimony was not "new or previously unavailable" evi-denee as required, according to defendant, for refilling under State v. Brickey, 714 P.2d 644, 647 (Utah 1986). | 2 | 4 |
Browning v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The Atencio court also relied on decisions from Oklahoma, see id. 11 16-17, which limit refiling restrictions to charges refiled after being dismissed for insufficient evidence, see Browning v. State, 648 P.2d 1261, 1263 (Okla.Crim.App.1982) ("[The appellant mistakenly relies upon [cases like Brickey,] for they refer to instances where the State presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing; whereas in the appellant's case, the State was not ready to present evidence at the first preliminary hearing."); Martinez v. State, 569 P.2d 497, 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (holding that the Ok 2004The court disagreed, noting that the cases the defendant relied upon referred “to instances where the State presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing; whereas in the [defendant’s] case, the State was not ready to present evidence at the first preliminary hearing.” Id.; see also Lampe v. State, 540 P.2d 590, 595 (Okla.Crim.App.1975) (noting that refiling charges that had been twice dismissed at preliminary hearing for lack of witnesses was not a denial of due process). ¶ 17 Like Browning , this case was dismissed, not for insufficient evidence, but because the State was “not re | 2 | 2 |
Lampe v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The Atencio court also relied on decisions from Oklahoma, see id. 11 16-17, which limit refiling restrictions to charges refiled after being dismissed for insufficient evidence, see Browning v. State, 648 P.2d 1261, 1263 (Okla.Crim.App.1982) ("[The appellant mistakenly relies upon [cases like Brickey,] for they refer to instances where the State presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing; whereas in the appellant's case, the State was not ready to present evidence at the first preliminary hearing."); Martinez v. State, 569 P.2d 497, 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (holding that the Ok 2004The court disagreed, noting that the cases the defendant relied upon referred “to instances where the State presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing; whereas in the [defendant’s] case, the State was not ready to present evidence at the first preliminary hearing.” Id.; see also Lampe v. State, 540 P.2d 590, 595 (Okla.Crim.App.1975) (noting that refiling charges that had been twice dismissed at preliminary hearing for lack of witnesses was not a denial of due process). ¶ 17 Like Browning , this case was dismissed, not for insufficient evidence, but because the State was “not re | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Rafael Gomez Urangagreen1 sentence2022See United States v. Oliva, 909 F.3d 1292 , 1301 n.11 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[T]his Court has also determined that, where a defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial but also moved for four continuances prior to that trial, the third Barker factor did not weigh ‘heavily’ against the Government.”). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2011The Atencio court also relied on decisions from Oklahoma, see id. 11 16-17, which limit refiling restrictions to charges refiled after being dismissed for insufficient evidence, see Browning v. State, 648 P.2d 1261, 1263 (Okla.Crim.App.1982) ("[The appellant mistakenly relies upon [cases like Brickey,] for they refer to instances where the State presented insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing; whereas in the appellant's case, the State was not ready to present evidence at the first preliminary hearing."); Martinez v. State, 569 P.2d 497, 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (holding that the Ok | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Labrum
neutral
1 sentence2025To borrow language from the court of appeals, where “the State put[s] on evidence, albeit unsuccessfully, intended to demonstrate” a clear element of a crime charged, “it cannot be said that the State failed 20 Cite as: 2025 UT 12 Opinion of the Court to present any evidence” of that element. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Atencio
green
2 sentences2011Based on those decisions, this court held in Atencio that "because the original charges against [the defendant] were dismissed for failure to proceed, rather than for insufficient evidence, the State was not required to support the refiled charges with 'new or previously unavailable evidence'" See Atencio, 2004 UT App 93, ¶ 21 , 89 P.3d 191 (quoting Brickey, 714 P.2d at 647 ). 118 The Atencio court also responded to the defendant's claim that the prosecutor's decision to end the preliminary hearing prematurely and to refile the charges constituted forum shopping. 2011Based on those decisions, this court held in Atencio that "because the original charges against [the defendant] were dismissed for failure to proceed, rather than for insufficient evidence, the State was not required to support the refiled charges with 'new or previously unavailable evidence'" See Atencio, 2004 UT App 93, ¶ 21 , 89 P.3d 191 (quoting Brickey, 714 P.2d at 647 ). 118 The Atencio court also responded to the defendant's claim that the prosecutor's decision to end the preliminary hearing prematurely and to refile the charges constituted forum shopping. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Rogers
neutral
2 sentences2006The court of appeals majority expressed its concern that continuances at the preliminary hearing stage might result in “coddling a lack of preparation by giving the prosecution multiple opportunities to prove it has a case.” State v. Rogers, 2005 UT App 379, ¶ 13 , 122 P.3d 661 . 2006The court of appeals majority expressed its concern that continuances at the preliminary hearing stage might result in “coddling a lack of preparation by giving the prosecution multiple opportunities to prove it has a case.” State v. Rogers, 2005 UT App 379, ¶ 13 , 122 P.3d 661 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2004The Utah Supreme Court concluded that the State’s failure to call the second police officer as a witness during the first preliminary hearing “was an ‘innocent miscalculation,’ which [constituted] ‘other good cause, [Brickey, 714 P.2d at 647 ,] sufficient to allow the prosecutor to refile the case.” Morgan, 2001 UT 87 at ¶ 21 , 34 P.3d 767 . ¶ 15 In this case, there is no evidence that when the prosecutor misplaced her file, she was engaged in a “potential abusive practice[]” that would have implicated Defendant’s due process rights. 2004The Utah Supreme Court concluded that the State’s failure to call the second police officer as a witness during the first preliminary hearing “was an ‘innocent miscalculation,’ which [constituted] ‘other good cause, [Brickey, 714 P.2d at 647 ,] sufficient to allow the prosecutor to refile the case.” Morgan, 2001 UT 87 at ¶ 21 , 34 P.3d 767 . ¶ 15 In this case, there is no evidence that when the prosecutor misplaced her file, she was engaged in a “potential abusive practice[]” that would have implicated Defendant’s due process rights. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Morgan
neutral
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.