Abstract
Like all other courts, the justice court system in Utah is far from flawless, and brings additional unique problems into the judicial system. The "trial de novo" appeal is the source of some of those problems. As the system has recently operated, it has not been uncommon for the "trial de novo" appeal from justice courts to create large disparities between the rights of defendants injustice courts and the rights of defendants in other criminal courts. The decisions in Dean, Hudecek, and Hinson have allowed defendants taking a "trial de novo" appeal in the district court to do so on the merits, despite a voluntary guilty plea injustice court, a mere plea in abeyance violation many months after the underlying crime, or a simple probation violation many months after the underlying crime. Similarly, defendants appealing from justice courts can even fail to appear for the "trial de novo" appeal without having the appeal dismissed. Defendants in other criminal courts do not have these rights. These odd results could be avoided if district courts would recognize that they are not "courts of first instance" when hearing an appeal from a justice court. In such situations, district courts should act in an "appellate" capacity, consistent with the authority of the Utah Constitution and Christensen.
Recommended Citation
Bates, Benjamin Will
(2001)
"Exploring Justice Courts in Utah and Three Problems Inherent in the Justice Court System,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2001:
No.
3, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2001/iss3/4