State v. Clark

Decision Date06 February 2001
Docket Number No. 990368, No. 990798.
Citation20 P.3d 300,2001 UT 9
PartiesSTATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Lamar CLARK, Defendant and Appellee. State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Cory Howard Smith, Defendant and Appellee.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Kenneth A. Bronston, Asst. Att'y Gen., Simarjit S. Gill, Kenneth R. Updegrove, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.

Kent R. Hart, Scott C. Williams, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

DURRANT, Justice:

¶ 1 In two separate prosecutions, Cory H. Smith and John L. Clark were charged with forgery. Smith was also charged with attempted theft by deception. In each case, the charges were based on allegations that the defendant had requested a bank to cash a recently stolen check and, when the bank did not readily comply, left the check and exited the bank. In each case, the defendant was initially bound over by a magistrate, but the bindover was subsequently quashed by the district court, on the ground that the State had failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the preliminary hearing. The State appeals both cases. Due to the similarity of the issues presented, the appeals have been consolidated.

BACKGROUND
I. STATE V. SMITH

¶ 2 Michelle Waldie drove to Draper City Park with her son on the morning of September 28, 1998. Between 10:00 a.m. and noon, someone broke a window of her car and stole a book of checks from her purse, which she had left in the car. Upon discovering the theft, Waldie quickly notified her bank that her checkbook had been stolen.

¶ 3 Later that day, Smith drove a car to the drive-up window of a First Security Bank office and attempted to cash one of the checks Waldie had reported as stolen. Because he did not have an account, Smith was told he would have to come inside the bank to cash the check. Smith entered the bank and presented the stolen check to Susan Paskett, a teller. The check was made out to Smith, as payee, for $400. Paskett asked Smith if he had an account at First Security and he replied that he did not. She informed him that to cash the check he would have to be fingerprinted and provide some form of identification. Smith provided a Utah identification card and the fingerprint of his right index finger, both of which were recorded on the check. Paskett then examined the account from which the check would be drawn to verify adequate funds and ensure there was no hold on the check. She discovered that there was, in fact, a hold on the account.

¶ 4 Because Paskett needed to go to another computer terminal to determine the reason for the hold, she told Smith she "would be right back" and walked away. She did not tell him about the hold on the account. Paskett went to the desk of her supervisor, Tonya Lindsay, and informed her of the situation. From Lindsay's computer terminal, the two discovered that the check had been reported as stolen. Lindsay called the police. After about five minutes, Smith came over to Lindsay's desk and asked, "What's the problem?" Lindsay, who was on the telephone, responded that she was trying to get approval for the check. Smith then exited the bank, leaving the check behind.

¶ 5 Smith was later arrested and charged with forgery and attempted theft by deception. The State presented evidence of the above facts at the preliminary hearing. Also, Waldie testified she had never met Smith and had never written a check to him. She further testified that the signature on the check was not hers. The magistrate then bound Smith over for trial. Smith filed a motion to quash the bindover, arguing that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not show that he had the knowledge required to commit forgery. The district court agreed, concluding that the State had failed to demonstrate "probable cause." Accordingly, the court quashed the bindover and dismissed the charges against Smith.

II. STATE V. CLARK

¶ 6 On July 1, 1998, Syd Page realized a book of her checks had been stolen from her workplace and so informed Zions First National Bank, where she held the checking account. Later that day, Clark entered a Zions branch and attempted to cash one of the checks that had been reported stolen by Page. The teller, Travis Colledge, asked Clark for identification and a fingerprint. Clark presented a Utah identification card and allowed Colledge to take his fingerprint. Colledge then entered Page's account number in his computer and discovered that the check had been reported stolen. He told Clark that there was a problem with the account and he would have to "take that up with the account holder." Clark then left the bank, taking with him his identification card, but not the check. Colledge followed him out of the bank, wrote down the license plate number of Clark's vehicle, and called the police.

¶ 7 A short time later, Clark was arrested, identified by Colledge, and charged with forgery. The State presented evidence of the above facts at the preliminary hearing. Also, Page testified that she had never met Clark and had never written a check to him. The magistrate then bound Clark over for trial. Clark filed a motion to quash the bindover, arguing that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not show that he had the intent and knowledge required to commit forgery. The district court agreed, concluding that the State had failed to demonstrate "probable cause." The court quashed the bindover and dismissed the forgery charge against Clark.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 The determination of whether to bind a criminal defendant over for trial is a question of law. See State v. Humphrey, 823 P.2d 464, 466 (Utah 1991)

. Accordingly, we review that determination without deference to the court below. See id. at 465-66.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9 The issue on appeal is whether the district court judges erred in quashing the magistrates' findings that there was probable cause to bind Smith and Clark over for trial.

I. THE PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD

¶ 10 To bind a defendant over for trial, the State must show "probable cause" at a preliminary hearing by "present[ing] sufficient evidence to establish that `the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it.'" State v. Pledger, 896 P.2d 1226, 1229 (Utah 1995) (quoting Utah R.Crim.P. 7(h)(2)). At this stage of the proceeding, "the evidence required [to show probable cause] . . . is relatively low because the assumption is that the prosecution's case will only get stronger as the investigation continues." Evans v. State, 963 P.2d 177, 182 (Utah 1998) (citing Pledger, 896 P.2d at 1229). Accordingly, "[w]hen faced with conflicting evidence, the magistrate may not sift or weigh the evidence . . . but must leave those tasks `to the fact finder at trial.'" State v. Hester, 2000 UT App 159, ¶ 7, 3 P.3d 725 (quoting State v. Wells, 1999 UT 27, ¶ 2, 977 P.2d 1192). Instead, "[t]he magistrate must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution." Id. (citing Pledger, 896 P.2d at 1229). Yet, "[t]he magistrate's role in this process, while limited, is not that of a rubber stamp for the prosecution. . . . Even with this limited role, the magistrate must attempt to ensure that all `groundless and improvident prosecutions' are ferreted out no later than the preliminary hearing." Id. (quoting State v. Anderson, 612 P.2d 778, 783-84 (Utah 1980)).

¶ 11 With these principles in mind, we turn to the question of what quantum of evidence is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause at the preliminary hearing stage of a prosecution. We have taken various approaches in articulating an answer to this question. In some cases, we have described the State's burden of proof at a preliminary hearing by comparing it to the burdens applicable to other stages of a criminal prosecution. We have held that the quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause at the preliminary hearing is "more than [is] required to establish probable cause for arrest." Anderson, 612 P.2d at 783 n. 13. To issue an arrest warrant, "the facts presented must be sufficient to establish that an offense has been committed and a reasonable belief the defendant committed it. The facts presented, however, do not have to establish a prima facie case against the defendant." Id. at 783 (emphasis added).1 We have further held that the probable cause standard is also "less than would prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 783 n. 13. Indeed, we recently stated, "[The probable cause] standard is lower, even, than a preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to civil cases." Pledger, 896 P.2d at 1229 (quoting and adopting the conclusion of the district court from which Pledger was appealed). Thus, our case law to this point places the level of proof necessary to support a preliminary hearing bindover somewhere between the reasonable belief necessary to support a warrant and the preponderance of the evidence standard applicable in the civil context.

¶ 12 In a number of cases, we have equated the preliminary hearing probable cause standard with the motion for directed verdict standard, i.e., "to survive a motion to quash a bindover, the State must produce enough evidence sufficient to survive a motion for directed verdict with respect to each element of the crime." State v. Talbot, 972 P.2d 435, 438 (Utah 1998) (emphasis added) (citing Pledger, 896 P.2d at 1229); see also, e.g., Hester, 2000 UT App 159, ¶ 6,

3 P.3d 725 (noting that "[t]he prosecution, at a minimum, must establish `a prima facie case against the defendant from which the trier of fact could conclude the defendant was guilty of the offense as charged'" (quoting Anderson, 612 P.2d at 783)); Pledger, 896 P.2d at 1229 (equating the probable cause standard with the standard for a directed verdict in a civil case, i.e., "`unless the evidence is wholly lacking and incapable of reasonable inference to prove some issue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 cases
  • State v. Bradshaw
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 10 Septiembre 2004
    ...a criminal defendant over for trial is a question of law.... [W]e review that determination without deference to the court below." State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9,¶ 8, 20 P.3d ANALYSIS I. Rules of Statutory Interpretation ¶ 9 "When interpreting statutes, our primary goal is to evince `the true in......
  • State v. Alexander
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 4 Mayo 2012
    ...asserted; and to persuade the trier of fact that his evidence is more credible or entitled to the greater weight”); see also State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶ 15, 20 P.3d 300 (noting that to survive a motion for directed verdict, the prosecution bears the burden of “produc[ing] believable eviden......
  • BRIXEN & CHRISTOPHER ARCH. v. State
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 28 Junio 2001
    ...lowered the probable cause standard for preliminary hearings, equating it with the standard required for an arrest warrant. See State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶ 16, 20 P.3d 300. At a preliminary hearing, the court "view[s] all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must dra......
  • State v. Bruun
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 28 Septiembre 2017
    ...the Operating Agreement to have authorized Defendants' conduct as a matter of law and dismiss the theft counts on that basis. See State v. Clark , 2001 UT 9, ¶ 13, 20 P.3d 300 ("We will uphold the trial court's decision to submit a case to the jury if, upon reviewing the evidence and all in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Street Legal. A Guide to Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for Police, Prosecutors, and Defenders
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Wichita v. Cook, 89 P.3d 934 (Kan. App. 2004) 89 Clark v. Municipality of Anchorage, 112 P.3d 676 (Alaska App. 2005) 124 Clark, State v., 20 P.3d 300 (Utah 2001) 74 Clark, State v., 24 P.3d 1006 (Wash. 2001) 190 Clarke, Commonwealth v., 692 N.E.2d 85 (Mass. App. 1998) 70 Clary, State v., 2 ......
  • Chapter 3. Arrest
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Street Legal. A Guide to Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for Police, Prosecutors, and Defenders
    • 1 Enero 2007
    ...Courts recognize that these terms essentially mean the same as “probable cause.” Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642 (1878); State v. Clark, 20 P.3d 300 (Utah 2001); People v. Chaney, ARRESTS 75 686 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (“reasonable cause means probable cause”). • Benefits of arrest ......
  • Utah Law Developments
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 32-2, April 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...state must present “‘sufficient evidence…that the crime charged has been committed and the defendant has committed it.’” State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶ 10, 20 P.3d 300 (quoting State v. Pledger, 896 P.2d 1226, 1229 (Utah 1995)). The sole purpose of the preliminary hearing is determining wheth......
  • Article Title: Utah Supreme Court Review 2000
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 2001-05, May 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...the Nevada mental health facility was not a "detention facility" within the meaning of the rule and affirmed. 4.Criminal State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, 414 Utah Adv. 10. quantum of evidence necessary to support a bindover to stand trial on a criminal charge is less than that necessary to surviv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT