Utah Code
Utah Code § 76-8-306 (2026)
Obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation or proceeding
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this section:
"Conduct that constitutes a criminal offense" means conduct that would be punishable as a crime and is separate from a violation of this section.
"Conduct that constitutes a criminal offense" includes:
any violation of a criminal statute or ordinance of this state or a political subdivision of this state, any other state, or any district, possession, or territory of the United States; and
conduct committed by a juvenile that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
"Juvenile offender" means the same as that term is defined in Section 80-1-102.
"Official custody" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-8-309.
Terms defined in Sections 76-1-101.5 and 76-8-101 apply to this section.
Except as provided in Subsection (5), an actor commits obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation or proceeding if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constitutes a criminal offense:
provides any person with a weapon;
prevents by force, intimidation, or deception, a person from performing an act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person;
alters, destroys, conceals, or removes an item or other thing;
makes, presents, or uses an item or thing known by the actor to be false;
harbors or conceals a person;
provides a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;
warns a person of impending discovery or apprehension;
warns a person of an order authorizing the interception of wire communications or of a pending application for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications;
conceals information that is not privileged and that concerns the offense, after a judge or magistrate has ordered the actor to provide the information; or
provides false information regarding a suspect, a witness, the conduct constituting an offense, or any other material aspect of the investigation.
A violation of Subsection (2) is:
a second degree felony if the conduct that constitutes an offense would be a capital felony or first degree felony;
a third degree felony if:
the conduct that constitutes an offense would be a second or third degree felony and the actor violates Subsection (2)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f);
the conduct that constitutes an offense would be any offense other than a capital or first degree felony and the actor violates Subsection (2)(a);
the obstruction of justice is presented or committed before a court of law; or
a violation of Subsection (2)(h); or
a class A misdemeanor for any violation of this section that is not enumerated under Subsection (3)(a) or (b).
It is not a defense that the actor was unaware of the level of penalty for the conduct constituting an offense.
Subsection (2) does not apply to harboring or concealing an offender who has escaped from official custody, which is governed by Section 76-8-309.2.
Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to:
threat with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere, or retaliate against a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole or acting against a family member of a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole under Section 76-8-316;
assault with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere, or retaliate against a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole or acting against a family member of a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole under Section 76-8-316.2;
aggravated assault with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere, or retaliate against a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole or acting against a family member of a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole under Section 76-8-316.4;
attempted murder with intent to impede, intimidate, interfere, or retaliate against a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole or acting against a family member of a judge or a member of the Board of Pardons and Parole under Section 76-8-316.6;
tampering with a witness under Section 76-8-508;
retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant under Section 76-8-508.3;
tampering or retaliating against a juror under Section 76-8-508.5;
receiving or soliciting a bribe as a witness under Section 76-8-508.7; or
extortion or bribery to dismiss a criminal proceeding under Section 76-8-509.
Subsection (2)(e) does not apply to harboring a juvenile offender, which is governed by Section 76-8-319.
For purposes of Subsection (3), a violation of a criminal statute that is committed in another state, or any district, possession, or territory of the United States, is:
a capital felony if the penalty provided includes death or life imprisonment without parole;
a first degree felony if the penalty provided includes life imprisonment with parole or a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding 15 years;
a second degree felony if the penalty provided exceeds five years;
a third degree felony if the penalty provided includes imprisonment for any period exceeding one year; or
a misdemeanor if the penalty provided includes imprisonment for any period of one year or less.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024).
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
State v. Paule, 2021 UT App 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(f) (Lexis Supp.”
Salt Lake City v. Valdez-Sadler, 2015 UT App 203 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “While Valdez- Sadler went into the bedroom to retrieve her pants, the officers checked the rest of the apartment to be sure that it was secure. In doing so, they discovered Boyfriend and placed him under arrest.”
State v. Mendoza, 2021 UT App 79 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Although Mendoza used strong language in informing the police of his distaste for their presence, nothing in this language amounts to the type of force or intimidation that could prevent the police from investigating a crime, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(b) (LexisNexis…”
State v. Sanchez, 2016 UT App 189 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “Sanchez argues that he ‚could be convicted of obstructing justice only if he concealed, removed, or destroyed evidence specifically intending to hinder the investigation of *Victim’s+ murder.”
State v. Oliver, 2018 UT App 101 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “Oliver see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1) (LexisNexis 2017); two counts of possession or use of a controlled substance, one charged as a third degree felony, and one charged as a class B misdemeanor see id.”
Felders v. Malcom, 755 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2014). “A reasonable person would not conclude that Felders’s statements, prior to even being asked if she was transporting drugs, would constitute providing “false information” with the intent to “delay [ ] or prevent the investigation” of a criminal offense.”
State v. Prater, 2017 UT 13 (Utah 2017). “Evidence Presented at Trial ¶8 The State charged Prater with aggravated murder, a first-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code section 76-5-202; obstructing justice, also a first-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-306; and discharging a firearm from a…”
Mglej v. Garfield Cnty., 974 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2020). “The Utah obstruction of justice statute, Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(i) (2011), provides that [a]n actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person…”
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 . Nothing in the record indicates that Mrs.”
State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10 (Utah 2015). “1; obstruction of justice, a second degree felony in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-306(1); and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a third degree felony in violation of Utah Code section 76-10-503(2)(b).”
State v. Lamm, 606 P.2d 229 (Utah 1980). “Undoubtedly, the defendant could have been prosecuted under the present facts for the lesser crime of obstructing justice in violation of Section 76-8-306, [20] but the present facts and circumstances are insufficient to support the inference he acted with the specific intent…”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1) — 11 cases
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
State v. Gonzalez, 2015 UT 10 (Utah 2015). “1; obstruction of justice, a second degree felony in violation of Utah Code section 76-8-306(1); and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a third degree felony in violation of Utah Code section 76-10-503(2)(b).”
State v. Maughan, 2013 UT 37 (Utah 2013).
State v. Pando, 122 P.3d 672 (Utah Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Holsomback, 2022 UT App 72 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(F) — 1 case
State v. Chavez-Reyes, 2015 UT App 202 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Mendoza, 2021 UT App 79 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Although Mendoza used strong language in informing the police of his distaste for their presence, nothing in this language amounts to the type of force or intimidation that could prevent the police from investigating a crime, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(b) (LexisNexis…”
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Horvath, 2018 UT App 165 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Hamilton, 2020 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
State v. DeHart, 2001 UT App 12 (Utah Ct. App. 2001).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
State v. Paule, 2021 UT App 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(f) (Lexis Supp.”
State v. Holsomback, 2022 UT App 72 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Draughon, 2026 UT App 52 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. Mendoza, 2021 UT App 79 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Although Mendoza used strong language in informing the police of his distaste for their presence, nothing in this language amounts to the type of force or intimidation that could prevent the police from investigating a crime, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(b) (LexisNexis…”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(f) — 1 case
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(i) — 1 case
Mglej v. Garfield Cnty., 974 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2020). “The Utah obstruction of justice statute, Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(i) (2011), provides that [a]n actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person…”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(2) — 5 cases
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
State v. Fitzwater, 2026 UT App 10 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Bingham, 575 P.2d 197 (Utah 1978).
State v. Thomas, 2025 UT App 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Underwood, 2026 UT App 76 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Paule, 2024 UT 2 (Utah 2024). “” 4 The court reasoned that these changes indicated the legislature’s intent that under the obstruction of justice statute, a person can be convicted of obstruction of justice “even if the underlying conduct is never ultimately found to constitute a crime.”
State v. Paule, 2021 UT App 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-306 (1)(f) (Lexis Supp.”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Wall, 2025 UT App 30 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Hernandez, 2025 UT App 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(3) — 2 cases
Mglej v. Garfield Cnty., 974 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2020). “The Utah obstruction of justice statute, Utah Code § 76-8-306(1)(i) (2011), provides that [a]n actor commits obstruction of justice if the actor, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person…”
Salt Lake City v. Valdez-Sadler, 2015 UT App 203 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “While Valdez- Sadler went into the bedroom to retrieve her pants, the officers checked the rest of the apartment to be sure that it was secure. In doing so, they discovered Boyfriend and placed him under arrest.”
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Logue, 2018 UT App 156 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
Arriaga v. State, 2018 UT App 160 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(3)(b)(i) — 1 case
State v. Horvath, 2018 UT App 165 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Horvath, 2018 UT App 165 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
— Utah Code § 76-8-306(8) — 1 case
Salt Lake City v. Valdez-Sadler, 2015 UT App 203 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “While Valdez- Sadler went into the bedroom to retrieve her pants, the officers checked the rest of the apartment to be sure that it was secure. In doing so, they discovered Boyfriend and placed him under arrest.”
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.