Utah Code » Title 78A, Chapter 7 — Justice Court; part 78A-7-1 — Creation, Jurisdiction, and Procedure
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78A-7-118 (2026)

Appeals from justice court -- Trial or hearing de novo in district court

✓ 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:
"Restitution" means the same as that term is defined in Section 77-38b-102.
"Victim" means the same as that term is defined in Section 77-38b-102.
In a criminal case, a defendant is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court only if the defendant files a notice of appeal within 28 days after the day on which:
except as provided in Subsection (5)(a)(ii), the justice court sentences the defendant; or
the defendant enters a plea of guilty or no contest in the justice court that is held in abeyance.
Upon filing a proper notice of appeal, any term of a sentence imposed by the justice court is stayed as provided for in Section 77-20-302 and the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.
If an appeal under Subsection (2) is of a plea entered pursuant to negotiation with the prosecutor, and the defendant did not reserve the right to appeal as part of the plea negotiation, the negotiation is voided by the appeal.
A defendant convicted and sentenced in the justice court is entitled to a hearing de novo in the district court regarding:
an order revoking probation;
a sentence after a determination that a defendant failed to fulfill the terms of a plea in abeyance agreement;
an order denying a motion to withdraw a plea if the plea is being held in abeyance and the motion to withdraw the plea is filed within 28 days after the day on which the plea is entered;
an order for restitution; or
an order denying expungement.
A defendant seeking an appeal under Subsection (5)(a) shall file a notice of appeal within 28 days after the day on which the justice court enters the order or sentence.
A defendant who has entered into a plea in abeyance in the justice court is entitled to a hearing de novo in the district court on the determination by the justice court as to the amount of restitution owed by the defendant as a part of the plea in abeyance agreement.
A defendant seeking an appeal under Subsection (6)(a) shall file a notice of appeal within 28 days after the day on which the justice court enters the order for restitution.
A prosecutor is entitled to a hearing de novo in the district court regarding:
a final judgment of dismissal;
an order arresting judgment;
an order terminating the prosecution because of a finding of double jeopardy or denial of a speedy trial;
a judgment holding invalid any part of a statute or ordinance;
a pretrial order excluding evidence when the prosecutor certifies that exclusion of that evidence prevents continued prosecution of an infraction or class C misdemeanor;
a pretrial order excluding evidence when the prosecutor certifies that exclusion of that evidence impairs continued prosecution of a class B misdemeanor;
an order granting a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest; or
an order granting an expungement if the expungement was opposed by the prosecution or a victim before the order was entered.
A prosecutor seeking an appeal under Subsection (7)(a) shall file a notice of appeal within 28 days after the day on which the justice court enters the order or judgment.
A prosecutor or a victim is entitled to a restitution hearing de novo in the district court regarding restitution if:
a request for restitution was made in the justice court; and
the justice court:
failed to order the defendant to pay restitution to the victim; or
ordered the defendant to pay restitution in an amount less than requested.
A prosecutor or victim seeking an appeal under Subsection (8)(a) shall file a notice of appeal within 28 days after the day on which the justice court:
failed to order the defendant to pay restitution; or
ordered the defendant to pay restitution in an amount less than requested.
Upon entering a decision in a hearing de novo, the district court shall remand the case to the justice court unless:
the decision results in immediate dismissal of the case; or
the hearing de novo was on a pretrial order and the parties and the district court agree to have the district court retain jurisdiction.
The district court shall retain jurisdiction over the case on trial de novo.
The decision of the district court is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021). · cites it 17× “RIDGE Opinion of the Court orders of the justice court as outlined in Section 78A-7-118.‖ Id. § 78A-5-102(6) (emphases added).”
Taylorsville City v. Mitchell, 2020 UT 26 (Utah 2020). · cites it 26× “See UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(4), (8) (providing for a “hearing de novo in the district court” on justice court convictions but foreclosing further appeal “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or TAYLORSVILLE CITY v.”
Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 2019 UT 4 (Utah 2019). · cites it 8× “" UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(8). ¶16 The only written ruling in the record with respect to Kidd's motion to dismiss, and the constitutional arguments contained therein, is the district court's notation that Kidd's motion was "[d]enied.”
Park City v. Woodham, 2024 UT 3 (Utah 2024). · cites it 21× “” The court of appeals cited Utah Code section 78A-7-118, which provides that the district court’s decision arising from a justice court appeal is final “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.”
Ralphs v. McClellan, 2014 UT 36 (Utah 2014). · cites it 9× “18 Ralphs filed an appeal of that justice court ruling in the Eighth District Court, seeking de novo review under Utah Code section 78A-7-118. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013). · cites it 4× “Urax CopE § 78A-7-118(1). In short, it is semantically difficult to conceptualize a trial de novo as an appeal.”
State v. Outzen, 2017 UT 30 (Utah 2017). · cites it 2× “Under Utah Code section 78A-7-118(8), after an appeal from justice court to the district court, "[t]he decision of the district court is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.”
Lehi City v. Rickabaugh, 2021 UT App 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “See generally Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (LexisNexis 2018) (explaining that a criminal defendant in justice court “is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court”); Utah R.”
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 26× “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
Salt Lake City v. McCLEVE, 2008 UT 41 (Utah 2008). · cites it 4× “Under section 502(1), therefore, a prosecutor who certifies under section 78A-7-118(4)(e) that continued prosecution is prevented is certifying that he is unable to prosecute the defendant under any of the alternate methods listed in the subsections.”
Murray City v. Timmerman, 2012 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 9× “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (2011). If a defendant files a timely notice of appeal from a justice court conviction, "a defendant is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court.”
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Res., 2018 UT 62 (Utah 2018). · cites it 2× “For instance, when a defendant appeals a criminal conviction from justice court to district court under Utah Code section 78A-7-118, the district court conducts a trial de novo , where "[t]he state bears the same burden of establishing a defendant's guilt .”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(1) — 15 cases
Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021). “RIDGE Opinion of the Court orders of the justice court as outlined in Section 78A-7-118.‖ Id. § 78A-5-102(6) (emphases added).”
Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 2019 UT 4 (Utah 2019). “" UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(8). ¶16 The only written ruling in the record with respect to Kidd's motion to dismiss, and the constitutional arguments contained therein, is the district court's notation that Kidd's motion was "[d]enied.”
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013). “Urax CopE § 78A-7-118(1). In short, it is semantically difficult to conceptualize a trial de novo as an appeal.”
Ralphs v. McClellan, 2014 UT 36 (Utah 2014). “18 Ralphs filed an appeal of that justice court ruling in the Eighth District Court, seeking de novo review under Utah Code section 78A-7-118. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Farmington City v. Lake, 2013 UT App 144 (Utah Ct. App. 2013).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(1)(a) — 1 case
Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021). “RIDGE Opinion of the Court orders of the justice court as outlined in Section 78A-7-118.‖ Id. § 78A-5-102(6) (emphases added).”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(1)(b) — 2 cases
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013). “Urax CopE § 78A-7-118(1). In short, it is semantically difficult to conceptualize a trial de novo as an appeal.”
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(11) — 3 cases
Park City v. Woodham, 2024 UT 3 (Utah 2024). “” The court of appeals cited Utah Code section 78A-7-118, which provides that the district court’s decision arising from a justice court appeal is final “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.”
Cottonwood Heights v. Hon. Johnson, 2025 UT App 114 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry, 2026 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(2) — 4 cases
Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021). “RIDGE Opinion of the Court orders of the justice court as outlined in Section 78A-7-118.‖ Id. § 78A-5-102(6) (emphases added).”
Park City v. Woodham, 2024 UT 3 (Utah 2024). “” The court of appeals cited Utah Code section 78A-7-118, which provides that the district court’s decision arising from a justice court appeal is final “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.”
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry, 2026 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(3) — 1 case
Kamoe v. Hon. Ridge, 2021 UT 5 (Utah 2021). “RIDGE Opinion of the Court orders of the justice court as outlined in Section 78A-7-118.‖ Id. § 78A-5-102(6) (emphases added).”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(4) — 2 cases
Taylorsville City v. Mitchell, 2020 UT 26 (Utah 2020). “See UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(4), (8) (providing for a “hearing de novo in the district court” on justice court convictions but foreclosing further appeal “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or TAYLORSVILLE CITY v.”
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(4)(a) — 1 case
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(4)(e) — 1 case
Salt Lake City v. McCLEVE, 2008 UT 41 (Utah 2008). “Under section 502(1), therefore, a prosecutor who certifies under section 78A-7-118(4)(e) that continued prosecution is prevented is certifying that he is unable to prosecute the defendant under any of the alternate methods listed in the subsections.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(5)(a) — 2 cases
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry, 2026 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(5)(e) — 1 case
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(5)(f) — 1 case
Utah Legal Clinic v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2019 UT App 58 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(6) — 2 cases
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
Utah Legal Clinic v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2019 UT App 58 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(7) — 6 cases
Gordon v. Maughan, 2009 UT App 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2009).
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
Lehi City v. Young, 2011 UT App 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Zabriskie v. Sweat, 2011 UT App 208 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
West Valley City v. Neilson, 2011 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(7)(a) — 1 case
City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry, 2026 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(7)(b) — 1 case
Cottonwood Heights v. Hon. Johnson, 2025 UT App 114 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(8) — 16 cases
Taylorsville City v. Mitchell, 2020 UT 26 (Utah 2020). “See UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(4), (8) (providing for a “hearing de novo in the district court” on justice court convictions but foreclosing further appeal “unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or TAYLORSVILLE CITY v.”
State v. Outzen, 2017 UT 30 (Utah 2017). “Under Utah Code section 78A-7-118(8), after an appeal from justice court to the district court, "[t]he decision of the district court is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.”
Salt Lake City v. Kidd, 2019 UT 4 (Utah 2019). “" UTAH CODE § 78A-7-118(8). ¶16 The only written ruling in the record with respect to Kidd's motion to dismiss, and the constitutional arguments contained therein, is the district court's notation that Kidd's motion was "[d]enied.”
Lehi City v. Rickabaugh, 2021 UT App 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “See generally Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (LexisNexis 2018) (explaining that a criminal defendant in justice court “is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court”); Utah R.”
Murray City v. Timmerman, 2012 UT App 110 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (2011). If a defendant files a timely notice of appeal from a justice court conviction, "a defendant is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(9) — 4 cases
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013). “Urax CopE § 78A-7-118(1). In short, it is semantically difficult to conceptualize a trial de novo as an appeal.”
Ralphs v. McClellan, 2014 UT 36 (Utah 2014). “18 Ralphs filed an appeal of that justice court ruling in the Eighth District Court, seeking de novo review under Utah Code section 78A-7-118. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod, 2013 UT 10 (Utah 2013).
City of St. George v. Hon. Gentry, 2026 UT App 62 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(l) — 2 cases
Bryner v. Cnty. Of Salt Lake, 429 F. App'x 739 (10th Cir. 2011).
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
— Utah Code § 78A-7-118(l)(a) — 1 case
Smith v. Hon. Hruby-Mills, 2016 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-118 (Lexis-Nexis Supp.”
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.