Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 08-04-2022

Case Style:

Devin Randolph v. State of Utah

Case Number: 20200881

Judge: Pearce

Court: Supreme Court of Utah on appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Sean D. Reyes, Att’y Gen., Jonathan S. Bauer, Asst. Solic. Gen.,
Salt Lake City, Katherine M. Filler, Salt Lake City

Defendant's Attorney:



Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Salt Lake City Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.


Description: Salt Lake City, Utah criminal lawyer represented Defendant charged with first-degree sexual assault.

¶1 The State charged Devin Randolph with four first-degree
felonies connected to an alleged sexual assault. The State filed a
motion for pretrial detention pursuant to Utah Code section 77-20-1,
arguing that there was substantial evidence to support the charges
and clear and convincing evidence that Randolph was a substantial
danger to the community and likely to flee if released on bail. The
State also argued that there were no conditions of pretrial release
that would ensure the public’s safety or Randolph’s appearance in
court. The district court granted the State’s motion.
¶2 Randolph contends that the State failed to meet its burden of
proof under section 77-20-1 and raises four arguments. He first
argues that we should apply a non-deferential de novo standard of
review to a district court’s bail determination. Randolph next argues
that the district court misunderstood the meaning of substantial
evidence in the bail context and therefore erred when it concluded
that the State had presented substantial evidence to support the
charges against him. He further argues that the district court erred
when it concluded that the State had introduced clear and
convincing evidence that he was a substantial danger to the public
and likely to flee if released on bail. Randolph last argues that the
district court erred when it concluded that there were no conditions
of pretrial release that would ensure the safety of the public or
Randolph’s appearance in court.
¶3 We affirm the district court. To start, we explain that a bail
determination requires a district court to make varied findings and
conclusions that, in turn, require different standards of review. The
question of whether substantial evidence exists to support the charge
is a law-like mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.
Questions of whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant is a substantial danger or likely to flee are fact-like mixed
questions to which we grant deference to the district court. Applying
these standards to this case, we conclude that the district court did
not err when it denied Randolph bail.

See: https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/State%20v.%20Randolph20220804.pdf

Outcome: 89 We review de novo the district court’s decision that
substantial evidence existed to deny Randolph bail. And we defined
the substantial evidence standard in State v. Kastanis, 848 P.2d 673
(Utah 1993). Although Randolph would like us to abandon that
standard, he has not met his burden of convincing us to depart from
stare decisis principles. We review for clear error the district court’s
conclusion that Randolph was likely to flee Utah if not held on bail,
and that no condition of pretrial release could reasonably ensure the
public’s safety or his appearance in court. We find no error in the
district court’s determinations. We affirm.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: