State v. Cahoon
| Decision Date | 02 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 20060362-CA.,20060362-CA. |
| Citation | 167 P.3d 533,2007 UT App 269 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dwight CAHOON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
John T. Caine, Ogden, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Atty. Gen., and Christopher D. Ballard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before BENCH, P.J., BILLINGS, and DAVIS, JJ.
¶ 1 Defendant Dwight Cahoon appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss, arguing that any prosecution for the amended charges against him would violate his constitutional right to due process and protection from double jeopardy. We reverse.
¶ 2 On August 12, 2004, the State filed an information against Defendant, charging him with ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first degree felony, for events occurring before the victim turned fourteen years old, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1(4) (2003), and ten counts of forcible sexual abuse, a second degree felony, for events occurring after the victim was fourteen, see id. § 76-5-404 (2003). In mid-January 2005, Defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Statute of Limitations. In the supporting memorandum, Defendant argued that the applicable four-year statute of limitations for all the charged offenses had run.
¶ 3 The State replied on January 28, 2005, opposing the motion to dismiss. The State agreed that the original twenty charges were time-barred by the statute of limitations, but also argued that based on the same alleged acts, Defendant could instead be charged with ten counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second degree felony, see id. § 76-5-404.1, which were lesser included offenses of the ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and were offenses for which the statute of limitations had not yet run. The State included, as an attachment, a proposed Amended Information charging Defendant with those ten counts.
¶ 4 On February 23, 2005, the trial court conducted a telephone conference regarding the motion to dismiss. The State again acknowledged that the original twenty counts were barred by the statute of limitations, but also mentioned that it had filed the Amended Information charging ten counts of sexual abuse of a child. Defendant requested, and the court granted, additional time to file pleadings challenging the filing of the Amended Information. Also during this telephone conversation, the court apparently dismissed the original twenty counts with prejudice, although such was not specifically stated in the accompanying minute entry.
¶ 5 Defendant then filed his Motion to Dismiss Amended Information, arguing that the doctrines of due process and double jeopardy precluded the ten counts of sexual abuse of a child because the ten previous counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child had already been dismissed. In August 2005, oral argument was held, at which the trial court determined that double jeopardy did not apply and that due process was not violated by the charges in the Amended Information. At this hearing, the trial court also instructed Defendant to prepare an order memorializing the February 23 phone conference. The court signed this order dismissing the original twenty counts with prejudice on September 1, 2005.
¶ 6 Plea negotiations followed thereafter, and Defendant pleaded guilty to two of the ten counts of sexual abuse of a child pursuant to State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935, 938-39 (Utah Ct.App.1988), thus preserving his right to appeal the trial court's decision on his constitutional arguments. Defendant now appeals.
¶ 7 Defendant raises arguments of due process and double jeopardy under both the federal and state constitutions. "[C]onstitutional arguments regarding double jeopardy and due process present questions of law," State v. One 1980 Cadillac, 2001 UT 26, ¶ 8, 21 P.3d 212, which we review for correctness.
¶ 8 The United States Constitution protects a defendant from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. See U.S. Const. amend. V.1 The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies three separate guarantees: "It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and against multiple punishments for the same offense." Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 306-07, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984). Defendant argues that the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child functions as an acquittal on those counts and, therefore, bars subsequent prosecution for the ten counts of sexual abuse of a child, which are lesser included offenses arising from the same acts for which Defendant was originally charged. We agree.
¶ 9 The United States Supreme Court has stressed that United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977) (citations omitted); see also State v. Musselman, 667 P.2d 1061, 1064 (Utah 1983) (). Thus, whether a trial court's ruling is characterized as a dismissal with or without prejudice, the ruling is an acquittal so long as it resolves at least one element of the offense charged in favor of the defendant.
¶ 10 The Utah Supreme Court has also instructed that "[b]ecause a defense based on the . . . statute of limitations . . . is valid even when the prosecution can prove all statutory elements of the crime, the prosecution is required to prove time as an additional aspect or element of its case." State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208, 1213 (Utah 1987). Here, because Defendant raised a statute of limitations defense, time became an element of the offense, and the trial court resolved this factual element in favor of Defendant-i.e., determining that the State could not prove that the ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child occurred at a time prior to the running of the statute of limitations. Thus, the trial court's dismissal with prejudice resolved an element of the offense in favor of Defendant, and such ruling is an acquittal of the ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, regardless of the actual title placed on the ruling.
¶ 11 We next address whether such an acquittal bars further prosecution of the crime. The Supreme Court case United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916), is instructive. In that case, an indictment was dismissed on the ground that the charge was barred by the statute of limitations. See id. at 86, 37 S.Ct. 68. The Supreme Court determined that such an acquittal barred further prosecution, reasoning that
[i]t cannot be that a judgment of acquittal on the ground of the statute of limitations is less a protection against a second trial than a judgment upon the ground of innocence, or that such a judgment is any more effective when entered after a verdict than if entered by the Government's consent before a jury is empaneled. . . .
Id. at 87, 37 S.Ct. 68. Thus, although "there had been no trial at all in the conventional sense, but merely a motion to dismiss, apparently without the reception of any evidence," the acquittal in Oppenheimer still barred future prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Hill, 473 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir. 1972).
¶ 12 Although we readily acknowledge that many, if not most, decisions prior to trial do not have double jeopardy implications,2 we agree with the Oppenheimer Court that in the rare cases in which a pretrial decision functions as an acquittal, further prosecution is barred.
Of course the quashing of a bad indictment is no bar to a prosecution upon a good one, but a judgment for the defendant upon the ground that the prosecution is barred goes to his liability as matter of substantive law and one judgment that he is free as matter of substantive law is as good as another. A plea of the statute of limitations is a plea to the merits, and however the issue was raised in the former case, after judgment upon it, it could not be reopened in a later prosecution.
Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. at 87-88, 37 S.Ct. 68 (citation omitted). Thus, the dispositive question is whether an acquittal has occurred, that is, whether "the judge ha[s] rendered a decision for the defendant `as a matter of substantive law.'" Hill, 473 F.2d at 762. The ruling here was a decision of substantive law, regardless of the point in the proceeding at which it was made. Thus, the acquittal on the originally filed ten counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child barred later prosecution of the subsequently filed ten counts of the lesser included offense, sexual abuse of a child. See generally Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977) ().
¶ 13 We recognize that "[i]t may be that in Oppenheimer the Court was applying res judicata or collateral estoppel rather than, or as much as, double jeopardy, although that is by no means clear." Hill, 473 F.2d at 762. But regardless of the theory relied upon, the Supreme Court determined that further prosecution was barred after a pretrial decision for the defendant as a matter of substantive law. See Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. at 87-88, 37 S.Ct. 68. Further, even without reliance on Oppenheimer, or on any constitutional double jeopardy principles for that matter, subsequent prosecution after a pretrial acquittal is also clearly barred under the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cahoon
...indicated in its opinion, however, that Cahoon's brief offered "no basis for independent reliance on the state constitution." State v. Cahoon, 2007 UT App 269, ¶ 8 n. 1, 167 P.3d 533 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court of appeals did not conduct a state constitutional......
-
State v. Sommerville
...and res judicata. Constitutional issues such as double jeopardy present questions of law, which we review for correctness. State v. Cahoon, 2007 UT App 269, ¶ 7, 167 P.3d 533,rev'd on other grounds,2009 UT 9, 203 P.3d 957. Similarly, whether res judicata applies to bar a subsequent prosecut......
- State v. Dennis
- State v. Cahoon