Utah Code
Utah Code § 77-38-11 (2026)
Enforcement -- Appellate review -- No right to money damages
✓ 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
If a person acting under color of state law allegedly violates the rights of a victim described in this chapter, Chapter 37, Victims' Rights, or Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 28, the victim, or a representative of a victim, may file a complaint with a victim rights committee as described in Section 75E-6-304.
If an individual acting under color of state law willfully or wantonly fails to perform duties so that the rights in this chapter are not provided, an action for injunctive relief, including prospective injunctive relief, may be brought against the individual and the governmental entity that employs the individual.
The victim of a crime or representative of a victim of a crime may:
bring an action for declaratory relief or for a writ of mandamus defining or enforcing the rights of victims and the obligations of government entities under this chapter;
petition to file an amicus brief in any court in any case affecting crime victims; and
after giving notice to the prosecution and the defense, seek an appropriate remedy for a violation of a victim's right from the court assigned to the case involving the issue.
Adverse rulings on these actions or on a motion or request brought by a victim of a crime or a representative of a victim of a crime may be appealed under the rules governing appellate actions, provided that an appeal may not constitute grounds for delaying any criminal or juvenile proceeding.
An appellate court shall review all properly presented issues, including issues that are capable of repetition but would otherwise evade review.
Upon a showing that the victim has not unduly delayed in seeking to protect the victim's right, and after hearing from the prosecution and the defense, the court shall determine whether a right of the victim has been violated.
If the court determines that a victim's right has been violated, the court shall:
determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victim's right by hearing from the victim and the parties and considering all factors relevant to the issue; and
award an appropriate remedy to the victim.
The court shall:
reconsider any judicial decision or judgment affected by a violation of the victim's right; and
upon affording the victim the right and further hearing from the prosecution and the defense, determine whether the decision or judgment would have been different.
If the court's decision or judgment would have been different, the court shall enter the new different decision or judgment as the appropriate remedy.
If necessary to protect the victim's right, the court shall enter the new decision or judgment nunc pro tunc to the time the first decision or judgment was reached.
In no event shall the appropriate remedy be a new trial, damages, attorney fees, or costs.
The appropriate remedy under Subsection (4) or (5) shall include only actions necessary to provide the victim the right to which the victim was entitled.
Subject to Subsection (7)(c), the court may reopen a sentence or a previously entered guilty or no contest plea only if reopening the sentence or plea:
would not preclude continued prosecution or sentencing the defendant; and
would not otherwise permit the defendant to escape justice.
The court shall tailor a remedy to provide the victim with an appropriate remedy without violating any constitutional right of the defendant.
If the court sets aside a previously entered plea of guilty or no contest, and the continued prosecution of the charge is held to be prevented by the defendant's having been previously put in jeopardy, the order setting aside the plea is void and the plea is reinstated as of the date of the plea's original entry.
The court may not award as a remedy the dismissal of any criminal charge.
The court may not award any remedy if the proceeding that the victim is challenging occurred more than 90 days before the day on which the victim filed an action alleging the violation of the right.
The failure to provide the rights in this chapter or Chapter 37, Victims' Rights, shall not constitute cause for a judgment against the state or any government entity, or any individual employed by the state or any government entity, for monetary damages, attorney fees, or the costs of exercising any rights under this chapter.
A defendant convicted of an offense may not bring an action or complaint concerning a violation of this chapter or Chapter 37, Victims' Rights.
Amended by Chapter 291, 2026 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, 251 P.3d 829.
State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, 251 P.3d 829. “" Appellants suggest that the legislature removed the statutory right to appeal from section 77-38-11 on May 12, 2009, and then reinserted it on May 11, 2010, after realizing the mistake.”
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29, 44 P.3d 756. “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(b)(c) (1999).”
State v. Hernandez, 2018 UT 41, 428 P.3d 1023. “' " (Second and third alterations in original) (quoting Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(c) ). And so we shall.”
State v. Worthen, 2009 UT 79, 222 P.3d 1144. “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(c) (2008). Reliance on section 77-88-11 as standing for the proposition that an appellate court must consider all arguments relating to victims' rights on appeal in its determination of an issue is misplaced.”
State v. Brown, 2014 UT 48, 342 P.3d 239. “" Utax Cope § 77-38-11(@2)(a)Giii) (emphasis added). T 19 These provisions recognize a victim's status as a limited-purpose party.”
State v. Lopez, 2020 UT 61, 474 P.3d 949. “clearly has both the standing and right to pursue an interlocutory appeal from the denial of her motion to quash, as she would be forced to testify otherwise and has a statutory right to seek an appeal from an “[a]dverse ruling[]” on her motion “under the rules governing…”
F.L. v. Court of Appeals, 2022 UT 32, 515 P.3d 421. “And Utah Code section 77-38-11(2)(b) states that rulings on a crime victim‘s motion ―may be appealed under the rules governing appellate actions,‖ i.”
Alt. Options & Servs. for Child. v. Chapman, 2004 UT App 488, 106 P.3d 744. “25; Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(a)(ii) (2003).”
State v. Nielsen, 2020 UT 61. “clearly has both the standing and right to pursue an interlocutory appeal from the denial of her motion to quash, as she would be forced to testify otherwise and has a statutory right to seek an appeal from an “[a]dverse ruling[]” on her motion “under the rules governing…”
Utah Off. for Victims of Crime v. Hembree, 2023 UT App 112, 538 P.3d 620. “’” Brown, 2014 UT 48, ¶ 19 (quoting Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(b) (quotation simplified)).”
Canary, No. 4:25-cv-00077 (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2025). “§ 77-38-11(1). 32 Id. § 78B-7-113(3). 2. Due Process Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ failure to enforce the civil stalking injunction violates her due process rights.”
State v. Brown, 2014 UT 48. “” UTAH CODE § 77-38-11(2)(a)(iii) (emphasis added). ¶19 These provisions recognize a victim’s status as a limited- purpose party.”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(1): 2 cases
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29, 44 P.3d 756. “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(b)(c) (1999).”
Canary, No. 4:25-cv-00077 (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2025). “§ 77-38-11(1). 32 Id. § 78B-7-113(3). 2. Due Process Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ failure to enforce the civil stalking injunction violates her due process rights.”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(1)(2): 1 case
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29, 44 P.3d 756. “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(b)(c) (1999).”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(a)(iii): 1 case
State v. Brown, 2014 UT 48. “” UTAH CODE § 77-38-11(2)(a)(iii) (emphasis added). ¶19 These provisions recognize a victim’s status as a limited- purpose party.”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(b): 7 cases
State v. Clark, 2011 UT 23, 251 P.3d 829. “" Appellants suggest that the legislature removed the statutory right to appeal from section 77-38-11 on May 12, 2009, and then reinserted it on May 11, 2010, after realizing the mistake.”
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29, 44 P.3d 756. “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(b)(c) (1999).”
State v. Lopez, 2020 UT 61, 474 P.3d 949. “clearly has both the standing and right to pursue an interlocutory appeal from the denial of her motion to quash, as she would be forced to testify otherwise and has a statutory right to seek an appeal from an “[a]dverse ruling[]” on her motion “under the rules governing…”
F.L. v. Court of Appeals, 2022 UT 32, 515 P.3d 421. “And Utah Code section 77-38-11(2)(b) states that rulings on a crime victim‘s motion ―may be appealed under the rules governing appellate actions,‖ i.”
State v. Brown, 2014 UT 48, 342 P.3d 239. “" Utax Cope § 77-38-11(@2)(a)Giii) (emphasis added). T 19 These provisions recognize a victim's status as a limited-purpose party.”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(c): 2 cases
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29, 44 P.3d 756. “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-11 (2)(b)(c) (1999).”
State v. Hernandez, 2018 UT 41, 428 P.3d 1023. “' " (Second and third alterations in original) (quoting Utah Code § 77-38-11(2)(c) ). And so we shall.”
Utah Code § 77-38-11(8): 1 case
Canary, No. 4:25-cv-00077 (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2025). “§ 77-38-11(1). 32 Id. § 78B-7-113(3). 2. Due Process Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants’ failure to enforce the civil stalking injunction violates her due process rights.”
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.