Utah Code
Utah Code § 76-5b-102 (2026)
Legislative determinations -- Purpose of chapter
✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The Legislature of Utah determines that:
the sexual exploitation of a minor is excessively harmful to the minor's physiological, emotional, social, and mental development;
the sexual exploitation of a vulnerable adult who lacks the capacity to consent to sexual exploitation can result in excessive harm to the vulnerable adult's physiological, emotional, and social well-being;
a minor cannot intelligently and knowingly consent to sexual exploitation;
regardless of whether it is classified as legally obscene, material that sexually exploits a minor, or a vulnerable adult who does not have the capacity to consent to sexual exploitation, is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or by the First or Fifteenth sections of Article I of the Utah Constitution and may be prohibited; and
prohibition of and punishment for the distribution, possession, possession with intent to distribute, and production of materials that sexually exploit a minor, or a vulnerable adult who lacks the capacity to consent to sexual exploitation, is necessary and justified to eliminate the market for those materials and to reduce the harm to the minor or vulnerable adult inherent in the perpetuation of the record of the minor's or vulnerable adult's sexually exploitive activities.
It is the purpose of this chapter to prohibit the production, possession, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of materials that sexually exploit a minor, or a vulnerable adult who lacks capacity to consent to sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the materials are classified as legally obscene.
Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 320, 2011 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2021 · leading case: State v. Hatfield, 2020 UT 1, 462 P.3d 330.
State v. Hatfield, 2020 UT 1, 462 P.3d 330. “§ 76-5b-102. B. Hatfield’s Arguments ¶27 Hatfield argues that the district court erred in four ways when it interpreted the Act.”
State v. Jordan, 2021 UT 37, 493 P.3d 683. “” UTAH CODE § 76-5b-102(1)(e) & (2) (emphasis added).”
Utah Code § 76-5b-102(1)(e): 1 case
State v. Jordan, 2021 UT 37, 493 P.3d 683. “” UTAH CODE § 76-5b-102(1)(e) & (2) (emphasis added).”
Utah Code § 76-5b-102(2): 1 case
State v. Hatfield, 2020 UT 1, 462 P.3d 330. “§ 76-5b-102. B. Hatfield’s Arguments ¶27 Hatfield argues that the district court erred in four ways when it interpreted the Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.