Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 7 — Offenses Against the Family; part 76-7-2 — Nonsupport and Custody of Children
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-7-201 (2026)

Criminal nonsupport

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person commits criminal nonsupport if, having a spouse, a child, or children under the age of 18 years, the person knowingly fails to provide for the support of a spouse, child, or children when any one of them:
is in needy circumstances; or
would be in needy circumstances but for support received from a source other than the defendant or paid on the defendant's behalf.
Except as provided in Subsection (3), criminal nonsupport is a class A misdemeanor.
Criminal nonsupport is a felony of the third degree if the defendant:
has been convicted one or more times of nonsupport, whether in this state, any other state, or any court of the United States;
committed the offense while residing outside of Utah; or
commits the crime of nonsupport in each of 18 individual months within any 24-month period, or the total arrearage is in excess of $10,000.
For purposes of this section "child" includes a child born out of wedlock whose paternity has been admitted by the defendant or has been established in a civil suit.
In a prosecution for criminal nonsupport under this section, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant is unable to provide support. Voluntary unemployment or underemployment by the defendant does not give rise to that defense.
Not less than 20 days before trial the defendant shall file and serve on the prosecuting attorney a notice, in writing, of the defendant's intention to claim the affirmative defense of inability to provide support. The notice shall specifically identify the factual basis for the defense and the names and addresses of the witnesses who the defendant proposes to examine in order to establish the defense.
Not more than 10 days after receipt of the notice described in Subsection (5)(b), or at such other time as the court may direct, the prosecuting attorney shall file and serve the defendant with a notice containing the names and addresses of the witnesses who the state proposes to examine in order to contradict or rebut the defendant's claim.
Failure to comply with the requirements of Subsection (5)(b) or (5)(c) entitles the opposing party to a continuance to allow for preparation. If the court finds that a party's failure to comply is the result of bad faith, it may impose appropriate sanctions.
Criminal nonsupport is a continuing offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: State v. Rodrigues, 2009 UT 62 (Utah 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Rodrigues, 2009 UT 62 (Utah 2009). · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND 3 Ronald Richard Rodrigues was charged with two counts of eriminal nonsupport, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code section 76-7-201 (2008). In the first count, the State alleged that Mr.”
State v. Hittle, 2004 UT 46 (Utah 2004). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (2003). Thirteen days later, on April 20, Hittle entered into a plea bargain with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to the class A misdemeanor in exchange for the dismissal of the third degree felony and the creation of a payment schedule…”
State v. Bickley, 2002 UT App 342 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “OPINION BENCH, Judge: ¶ 1 Defendant appeals from a restitution order entered in connection with his conviction for criminal nonsupport, a class A misde *583 meanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. §76-7-201 (1999). BACKGROUND ¶2 In 1994, the State prosecuted Defendant for failing…”
State v. Hedgcock, 2019 UT App 93 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (3) (LexisNexis 2017) (listing the elements of criminal nonsupport).”
State v. Hittle, 2002 UT App 134 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND ¶ 2 Defendant was charged with a third degree felony and a class A misdemeanor for criminal mnon-support, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (1999). During a hearing in April 2000, Defendant pleaded guilty to the class A misdemeanor, agreed to pay all child…”
State v. Barlow, 851 P.2d 1191 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “TRIAL On March 2, 1991, a jury convicted Barlow of criminal nonsupport in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (1990). In reviewing a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict.”
State v. White, 2011 UT App 155 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See generally Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (2008) (establishing erime of criminal nonsupport).”
State v. Pantelakis, 327 P.3d 586 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (1), (8) (Lex-isNexis 2012).”
State v. Breeze, 2001 UT App 200 (Utah Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “GREENWOOD, Presiding Judge: T1 Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal nonsupport, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (1999), claiming the trial court erred in ordering restitution without a hearing.”
State v. Knaras, 2016 UT App 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “On appeal, Knaras asserts that the instructions should have stated that "the State must disprove his affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Knaras thus believes that the instructions should have included language casting the State's burden in negative terms, i.”
State v. Richardson, 2009 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “OPINION BILLINGS, Senior Judge: T1 Defendant Darin Ray Richardson appeals his sentence of 180 days in jail following his guilty plea to one count of criminal nonsupport, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (2008). We affirm.”
State v. Johnson, 79 P.3d 419 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “BACKGROUND T2 The State of Utah charged Defendant with one count of eriminal nonsupport, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-201 (1), (8)(e) (1999) (the Criminal Nonsupport Statute).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 76-7-201(1) — 1 case
State v. Knaras, 2016 UT App 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “On appeal, Knaras asserts that the instructions should have stated that "the State must disprove his affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Knaras thus believes that the instructions should have included language casting the State's burden in negative terms, i.”
— Utah Code § 76-7-201(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Knaras, 2016 UT App 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “On appeal, Knaras asserts that the instructions should have stated that "the State must disprove his affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Knaras thus believes that the instructions should have included language casting the State's burden in negative terms, i.”
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.