Utah Code
Utah Code § 77-22-2 (2026)
Investigations -- Right to subpoena witnesses and require production of evidence -- Contents of subpoena -- Rights of witnesses -- Interrogation before closed court -- Disclosure of information
✓ 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, "prosecutor" means the same as that term is defined in Section 77-22-4.5.
In any matter involving the investigation of a crime or malfeasance in office, or any criminal conspiracy or activity, the prosecutor may, upon application and approval of the district court and for good cause shown, conduct a criminal investigation.
The application and statement of good cause shall state whether another investigative order related to the investigation at issue has been filed in another court.
Subject to the conditions established in Subsection (3)(b), the prosecutor may:
subpoena witnesses;
compel their attendance and testimony under oath to be recorded by a suitable electronic recording device or to be given before any certified court reporter; and
require the production of books, papers, documents, recordings, and any other items that are evidence or may be relevant to the investigation.
The prosecutor shall:
apply to the district court for each subpoena; and
show that the requested information is reasonably related to the criminal investigation authorized by the court.
The prosecutor shall state in each subpoena:
the time and place of the examination;
that the subpoena is issued in aid of a criminal investigation; and
the right of the person subpoenaed to have counsel present.
The examination may be conducted anywhere within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor issuing the subpoena.
The subpoena need not disclose the names of possible defendants.
Witness fees and expenses shall be paid as in a civil action.
At the beginning of each compelled interrogation, the prosecutor shall personally inform each witness:
of the general subject matter of the investigation;
of the privilege to, at any time during the proceeding, refuse to answer any question or produce any evidence of a communicative nature that may result in self-incrimination;
that any information provided may be used against the witness in a subsequent criminal proceeding; and
of the right to have counsel present.
If the prosecutor has substantial evidence that the subpoenaed witness has committed a crime that is under investigation, the prosecutor shall:
inform the witness in person before interrogation of that witness's target status; and
inform the witness of the nature of the charges under consideration against the witness.
The prosecutor may make written application to any district court showing a reasonable likelihood that publicly releasing information about the identity of a witness or the substance of the evidence resulting from a subpoena or interrogation would pose a threat of harm to a person or otherwise impede the investigation.
Upon a finding of reasonable likelihood, the court may order the:
interrogation of a witness be held in secret;
occurrence of the interrogation and other subpoenaing of evidence, the identity of the person subpoenaed, and the substance of the evidence obtained be kept secret; and
record of testimony and other subpoenaed evidence be kept secret unless the court for good cause otherwise orders.
After application, the court may by order exclude from any investigative hearing or proceeding any persons except:
the attorneys representing the state and members of their staffs;
persons who, in the judgment of the attorneys representing the state, are reasonably necessary to assist in the investigative process;
the court reporter or operator of the electronic recording device; and
the attorney for the witness.
This chapter does not prevent attorneys representing the state or members of their staff from disclosing information obtained pursuant to this chapter for the purpose of furthering any official governmental investigation.
If a secrecy order has been granted by the court regarding the interrogation or disclosure of evidence by a witness under this subsection, and if the court finds a further restriction on the witness is appropriate, the court may order the witness not to disclose the substance of the witness's testimony or evidence given by the witness to others.
Any order to not disclose made under this subsection shall be served with the subpoena.
In an appropriate circumstance the court may order that the witness not disclose the existence of the investigation to others.
Any order under this Subsection (6)(d) must be based upon a finding by the court that one or more of the following risks exist:
disclosure by the witness would cause destruction of evidence;
disclosure by the witness would taint the evidence provided by other witnesses;
disclosure by the witness to a target of the investigation would result in flight or other conduct to avoid prosecution;
disclosure by the witness would damage a person's reputation; or
disclosure by the witness would cause a threat of harm to any person.
If the court imposes an order under Subsection (6)(d) authorizing an instruction to a witness not to disclose the substance of testimony or evidence provided and the prosecuting agency proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a witness has violated that order, the court may hold the witness in contempt.
An order of secrecy imposed on a witness under this Subsection (6)(e) may not infringe on the attorney-client relationship between the witness and the witness's attorney or on another legally recognized privileged relationship.
The prosecutor may submit to any district court a separate written request that the application, statement of good cause, and the court's order authorizing the investigation be kept secret.
The request for secrecy is a public record under Title 63G, Chapter 2, Government Records Access and Management Act, but need not contain any information that would compromise any of the interest listed in Subsection (7)(c).
With the court's permission, the prosecutor may submit to the court, in camera, any additional information to support the request for secrecy if necessary to avoid compromising the interests listed in Subsection (7)(c).
The court shall consider all information in the application and order authorizing the investigation and any information received in camera and shall order that all information be placed in the public file except information that, if disclosed, would pose:
a substantial risk of harm to a person's safety;
a clearly unwarranted invasion of or harm to a person's reputation or privacy; or
a serious impediment to the investigation.
Before granting an order keeping secret documents and other information received under this section, the court shall narrow the secrecy order as much as reasonably possible in order to preserve the openness of court records while protecting the interests listed in Subsection (7)(c).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988).
In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1982). Before the Act was amended in 1980, however, the district court had greater supervisory powers.”
Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516 (Utah 1994). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (2)(a) (Supp. 1993).”
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (7)(a). Pursuant to that contention, in this action Kearns-Tribune seeks access to the district attorney’s application for secrecy of the underlying investigation and the district court’s order granting such secrecy, to determine whether, in its…”
Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14 (Utah 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (5) (2003). The current version of the Subpoena Powers Act requires the prosecutor to inform the witness (i) of the general subject matter of the investigation; (ii) of the privilege to, at any time during the proceeding, refuse to answer any question or…”
Schroeder v. Utah Attorney Gen.'s Off., 2015 UT 77 (Utah 2015). “According to the special agent who created the records, the AG's Office moved to open the investigation under section 77-22-2 after receiving a report from the SBI detailing potential eriminal activity.”
Brixen & Christopher Architects, P.C. v. State, 2001 UT App 210 (Utah Ct. App. 2001). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (3)(b)(i) (2000).”
State v. Thompson, 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1) (1980) (emphasis added).”
Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2000). “073 (1996); Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1995). See generally H.”
State v. Buttars, 2020 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “” Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (6)(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2017).”
State v. Martin, 2012 UT App 208 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See generally Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (4)(a) ("Any plea in abeyance agreement entered into between the prosecution and the defendant and approved by the court shall include a full, detailed recitation of the requirements and conditions agreed to by the defendant and the reason…”
Redding v. Jacobsen, 638 P.2d 503 (Utah 1981). “2d 33 (1981), and to approve the judicial measures necessary to preserve the secrecy required during a criminal investigation before a grand jury or á prosecutor exercising similar statutory powers.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(1) — 1 case
In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1982). Before the Act was amended in 1980, however, the district court had greater supervisory powers.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(2) — 2 cases
In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1982). Before the Act was amended in 1980, however, the district court had greater supervisory powers.”
Matter of Crim. Investigation, 738 P.2d 1027 (Utah 1987).
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(2)(a) — 2 cases
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
Schroeder v. Utah Attorney Gen.'s Off., 2015 UT 77 (Utah 2015). “According to the special agent who created the records, the AG's Office moved to open the investigation under section 77-22-2 after receiving a report from the SBI detailing potential eriminal activity.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(2)(b) — 1 case
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (7)(a). Pursuant to that contention, in this action Kearns-Tribune seeks access to the district attorney’s application for secrecy of the underlying investigation and the district court’s order granting such secrecy, to determine whether, in its…”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(3) — 3 cases
In re Crim. Investigation, 7th Dist. Court No. CS-1, 754 P.2d 633 (Utah 1988). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (1982). Before the Act was amended in 1980, however, the district court had greater supervisory powers.”
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
Redding v. Jacobsen, 638 P.2d 503 (Utah 1981). “2d 33 (1981), and to approve the judicial measures necessary to preserve the secrecy required during a criminal investigation before a grand jury or á prosecutor exercising similar statutory powers.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(5) — 1 case
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(5)(a) — 1 case
Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14 (Utah 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (5) (2003). The current version of the Subpoena Powers Act requires the prosecutor to inform the witness (i) of the general subject matter of the investigation; (ii) of the privilege to, at any time during the proceeding, refuse to answer any question or…”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(5)(b) — 1 case
Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14 (Utah 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (5) (2003). The current version of the Subpoena Powers Act requires the prosecutor to inform the witness (i) of the general subject matter of the investigation; (ii) of the privilege to, at any time during the proceeding, refuse to answer any question or…”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(5)(b)(i) — 1 case
Brixen & Christopher Architects, P.C. v. State, 2001 UT App 210 (Utah Ct. App. 2001). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (3)(b)(i) (2000).”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(6)(a) — 1 case
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(6)(a)(i) — 2 cases
Burns v. Boyden, 2006 UT 14 (Utah 2006). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (5) (2003). The current version of the Subpoena Powers Act requires the prosecutor to inform the witness (i) of the general subject matter of the investigation; (ii) of the privilege to, at any time during the proceeding, refuse to answer any question or…”
State v. Buttars, 2020 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2020). “” Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (6)(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2017).”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(6)(a)(ii)(B) — 1 case
State v. Yount, 2008 UT App 102 (Utah Ct. App. 2008).
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(7) — 1 case
Gutierrez v. Medley, 972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998). “RUSSON, Justice: Johnny Gutierrez, his wife Cindy Gutierrez, and his daughter Melissa Gutierrez challenge the Third District Court's order denying a motion to quash subpoenas issued to Cindy and Melissa Gutierrez pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 . We reverse and remand.”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(7)(a) — 1 case
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (7)(a). Pursuant to that contention, in this action Kearns-Tribune seeks access to the district attorney’s application for secrecy of the underlying investigation and the district court’s order granting such secrecy, to determine whether, in its…”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(8) — 1 case
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (7)(a). Pursuant to that contention, in this action Kearns-Tribune seeks access to the district attorney’s application for secrecy of the underlying investigation and the district court’s order granting such secrecy, to determine whether, in its…”
— Utah Code § 77-22-2(l)(a) — 1 case
Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-22-2 (7)(a). Pursuant to that contention, in this action Kearns-Tribune seeks access to the district attorney’s application for secrecy of the underlying investigation and the district court’s order granting such secrecy, to determine whether, in its…”
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.