State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223 (Utah 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223 (Utah 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Harrison (utah, 2011-12-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Harrison
Utah · 2011 · confidence medium
We therefore lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. € 24 "The cireumstances under which the State may appeal adverse rulings in the [district] court in criminal cases have traditionally been limited by constitutional and statutory provisions." State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cushing
Utah Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Otherwise, “ ‘the State [would have] an appeal of right from virtually every adverse pretrial order,’ for the State will almost always be able to dismiss a case, appeal from that dismissal, and then refile the charges, whatever the outcome of the appeal.” Id. at 530-31 (quoting State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985)). ¶ 14 Cushing argues that because the trial court did not hold a hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss, he was not allowed “a chance to object before the dismissal [was] entered.” Id. at 531.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cushing
Utah Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Otherwise, " 'the State [would have) an appeal of right from virtually every adverse pretrial order, for the State will almost always be able to dismiss a case, appeal from that dismissal, and then refile the charges, whatever the outcome of the appeal." Id. at 530-31 (quoting State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Larsen
Utah Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
STATE’S RIGHT TO APPEAL Utah Code Ann. § 77 -18a-l (Supp. 1991) “delineates a narrow category of cases in which the prosecution may take an appeal.” State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985); accord State v. Amador, 804 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Utah App.1990).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Amador (4×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Section 77-35-26(3) (Supp.1989) “delineates a narrow category of cases in which the prosecution may take an appeal.” State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Willard
Utah Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Houston
Utah Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 580-31 (noting that if it permitted the State an appeal of right after the State sought "review of suppression orders by dismissing a case and then appealing from that dismissal," it "'would give the State an appeal of right from virtually every adverse pretrial order, for the State will almost always be able to dismiss a case, appeal from that dismissal, and then refile the charges, whatever the outcome of the appeal'") Id. at 530-81 (quoting State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985)); accord State v. Cushing, 2004 UT App 73, ¶ 13 , 88 P.3d 368 . ¶11 The parties do not dis…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Stirba
Utah Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Waddoups, 712 P.2d 223, 224 (Utah 1985); State v. Kelbach, 569 P.2d 1100, 1102 (Utah 1977); State v. Workman, 806 P.2d 1198, 1201-02 (Utah Ct.App.1991), aff'd, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993). 2 . " '[T]he granting a writ [of mandamus] is always a matter of discretion with this court and never a matter of right on behalf of the applicant.’ " Renn v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 904 P.2d 677, 683 (Utah 1995) (quoting State v. Ruggeri, 19 Utah 2d 216, 220 , 429 P.2d 969, 971 (1967)) (alterations in original). 3 .
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Dorian WADDOUPS, Defendant and Respondent
20076.
Utah Supreme Court.
Dec 9, 1985.
712 P.2d 223
David L. Wilkinson, Paul M. Warner, Robert N. Parrish, Sandra L. Sjogren, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant., Jack H. Molgard, Brigham City, for defendant and respondent.
Durham, Hall, Stewart, Howe, Zimmerman.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
DURHAM, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal of a criminal case. The State claims error in a pretrial ruling declaring a witness incompetent to testify and suppressing the witness’s out-of-court statements. No error in the dismissal itself is claimed, since it was granted at the State’s request after the entry of the pretrial order. The[*224] threshold question for our determination is whether the State may pursue an appeal of right under these circumstances.

The circumstances under which the State may appeal adverse rulings in the trial court in criminal cases have traditionally been limited by constitutional and statutory provisions. See, e.g., State v. Kelbach, Utah, 569 P.2d 1100 (1977) (State has no right to appeal except as expressly provided by statute). The Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure have codified that restrictive approach in U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-26, which delineates a narrow category of cases in which the prosecution may take an appeal. An appeal from an order granting a pretrial motion to suppress is not permitted as a matter of right, but only “when, upon a petition for review, the supreme court decides that such an appeal would be in the interest of justice.” U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-26(c)(5). The State has attempted to circumvent this Court’s discretion to grant or deny petitions for review pursuant to this section by requesting a dismissal and relying on paragraph (1) of Rule 26(c), which permits an appeal of right by the prosecution “[f]rom a final judgment of dismissal.”

It is clear from the briefs and oral argument in this case that the State wishes to have this Court review, not the trial court’s order of dismissal, but the earlier order of suppression. To allow an appeal of right in such a circumstance would give the State an appeal of right from virtually every adverse pretrial order. That result would be inconsistent with our law and would be a distortion of the language and intent of the statute. Therefore, we hold that this appeal has not been properly filed, and we order it dismissed.

HALL, C.J., and STEWART, HOWE and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.