Utah Code

Utah Code § 77-38-4 (2026)

Right to be present, to be heard, and to file an amicus brief on appeal -- Control of disruptive acts or irrelevant statements -- Statements from persons in custody

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The victim of a crime, the representative of the victim, or both shall have the right:
to be present at the important criminal or juvenile justice hearings provided in Subsection 77-38-2(5);
to be heard at the important criminal or juvenile justice hearings provided in Subsections 77-38-2(5)(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h);
to submit a written statement in any action on appeal related to that crime; and
upon request to the judge hearing the matter, to be present and heard at the initial appearance of the person suspected of committing the conduct or criminal offense against the victim on issues relating to whether to release a defendant or minor and, if so, under what conditions release may occur.
This chapter shall not confer any right to the victim of a crime to be heard:
at any criminal trial, including the sentencing phase of a capital trial under Section 76-3-207 or at any preliminary hearing, unless called as a witness; and
at any delinquency trial or at any preliminary hearing in a minor's case, unless called as a witness.
The right of a victim or representative of a victim to be present at trial is subject to Rule 615 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.
Nothing in this chapter shall deprive the court of the right to prevent or punish disruptive conduct nor give the victim of a crime the right to engage in disruptive conduct.
The court shall have the right to limit any victim's statement to matters that are relevant to the proceeding.
In all cases where the number of victims exceeds five, the court may limit the in-court oral statements it receives from victims in its discretion to a few representative statements.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a victim's right to be heard may be exercised at the victim's discretion in any appropriate fashion, including an oral, written, audiotaped, or videotaped statement or direct or indirect information that has been provided to be included in any presentence report.
If the victim of a crime is a person who is in custody as a pretrial detainee, as a prisoner following conviction for an offense, or as a juvenile who has committed an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult, or who is in custody for mental or psychological treatment, the right to be heard under this chapter shall be exercised by submitting a written statement to the court.
The court may exclude any oral statement from a victim on the grounds of the victim's incompetency as provided in Rule 601(a) of Utah Rules of Evidence.
Except in juvenile court cases, the Constitution may not be construed as limiting the existing rights of the prosecution to introduce evidence in support of a capital sentence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1996–2020 · leading case: State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29 (Utah 2002).
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29 (Utah 2002). · cites it 23× “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (1) (1999). ¶ 25 Given that both the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code grant crime victims the right to be heard at "important criminal justice hearings," the question that arises is what constitutes an "important criminal justice hearing" under the…”
State v. Shaffer, 2010 UT App 240 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (1)(b) (2008). Furthermore, the Utah Supreme Court has held that prosecutors have the responsibility "to assist victims in exercising their rights.”
State v. Beltran-Felix, 922 P.2d 30 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (3) (Supp.1995).”
State v. Miguel Mateos-Martinez, 2013 UT 23 (Utah 2013). · cites it 2× “Mateos-Martinez does advance general arguments in his brief regarding the relevance of the testimony and its highly inflammatory character, citing Utah Code section 77-38-4(4)-(5) (The "court shall have the right to limit any victim's statement to matters that are relevant to…”
United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). · cites it 2× “Codified Laws § 23A-28C-1(8) (same); Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (7) (same); Vt. Stat.”
State v. Harrison, 2001 UT 33 (Utah 2001). “§ 77-38-2(5); § 77-38-3; § 77-38-4(1) & (2) (stating that "[the Rights of Crime Victims Act] shall not confer any right to the victim of a crime to be heard: (a) at any criminal trial.”
State v. Norton, 2020 UT 46 (Utah 2020). “See UTAH CODE § 77-38-4(1); see also id. § 77-18-1(5)(b)(i).”
West Valley City v. Walljasper, 2012 UT App 252 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “§ 77-38-4(1)(b) (Supp. 2012). 5 . Nothing in State v.”
State v. Rivera, 2016 UT App 202 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (l)(b) (LexisNexis 2012).”
United States v. Dengenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). “§ 77-38-4(7) (same); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, § 5321 (same); WASH.”
State v. Miguel Mateos-Martinez, 2013 UT 23 (Utah 2013). · cites it 2× “Mateos-Martinez does advance general arguments in his brief regarding the relevance of the testimony and its highly inflammatory character, citing Utah Code section 77-38-4(4)-(5) (The “court shall have the right to limit any victim’s statement to matters that are relevant to…”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(1) — 4 cases
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29 (Utah 2002). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (1) (1999). ¶ 25 Given that both the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code grant crime victims the right to be heard at "important criminal justice hearings," the question that arises is what constitutes an "important criminal justice hearing" under the…”
State v. Harrison, 2001 UT 33 (Utah 2001). “§ 77-38-2(5); § 77-38-3; § 77-38-4(1) & (2) (stating that "[the Rights of Crime Victims Act] shall not confer any right to the victim of a crime to be heard: (a) at any criminal trial.”
State v. Norton, 2020 UT 46 (Utah 2020). “See UTAH CODE § 77-38-4(1); see also id. § 77-18-1(5)(b)(i).”
State v. Beltran-Felix, 922 P.2d 30 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (3) (Supp.1995).”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(1)(b) — 1 case
West Valley City v. Walljasper, 2012 UT App 252 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “§ 77-38-4(1)(b) (Supp. 2012). 5 . Nothing in State v.”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Shaffer, 2010 UT App 240 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (1)(b) (2008). Furthermore, the Utah Supreme Court has held that prosecutors have the responsibility "to assist victims in exercising their rights.”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(4) — 2 cases
State v. Miguel Mateos-Martinez, 2013 UT 23 (Utah 2013). “Mateos-Martinez does advance general arguments in his brief regarding the relevance of the testimony and its highly inflammatory character, citing Utah Code section 77-38-4(4)-(5) (The "court shall have the right to limit any victim's statement to matters that are relevant to…”
State v. Miguel Mateos-Martinez, 2013 UT 23 (Utah 2013). “Mateos-Martinez does advance general arguments in his brief regarding the relevance of the testimony and its highly inflammatory character, citing Utah Code section 77-38-4(4)-(5) (The “court shall have the right to limit any victim’s statement to matters that are relevant to…”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(7) — 1 case
United States v. Dengenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (D. Utah 2005). “§ 77-38-4(7) (same); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 13, § 5321 (same); WASH.”
— Utah Code § 77-38-4(8) — 1 case
State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29 (Utah 2002). “" Utah Code Ann. § 77-38-4 (1) (1999). ¶ 25 Given that both the Utah Constitution and the Utah Code grant crime victims the right to be heard at "important criminal justice hearings," the question that arises is what constitutes an "important criminal justice hearing" under the…”
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.