Motion to Quash Bindover - Utah Criminal Defense Attorney
A bindover order is made by a Utah state court magistrate following a
preliminary hearing in
felony and class A
misdemeanor cases,when the
magistrate has found probable cause to support a belief that a crime
has been committed, and
that the defendant is the person who committed that crime. When the
magistrate has made the required findings, the magistrate will order
that the defendant be bound over to the district court* to answer the
charges.
In mounting an effective defense, a motion to quash the bindover
order can be used to challenge the district court's jurisdiction. In
many instances, a successful motion to quash bindover will result in
the complete dismissal of the criminal case.
If
you are facing criminal charges in Utah, it is vital to have the
assistance of an
experienced criminal
defense attorney.
Contact us
today to arrange for an initial confidential consultation.
Can a motion to quash be used to challenge a magistrate's
bindover order following a criminal preliminary hearing?
Under the legal principle sometimes referred to as "the law of the
case," a court will consider itself to be bound by its own prior legal
rulings or factual findings made at an earlier stage of the case. An
argument might therefore be made that once the court has made a
determination that probable cause does in fact exist, that such
determination becomes "the law of the case" and cannot be challenged
again. This argument, however, is incorrect in the context of a motion
to quash a bindover order made following a preliminary hearing..
A motion to quash the bindover is in some sense a challenge to the
district court's jurisdiction. The motion to quash challenges the legal
and factual basis for the magistrate's bindover order which allowed the
district
court to take original jurisdiction over the matter. Utah courts have made it clear that the principle of "the law of the
case" does not prevent a review by the district court judge of the
magistrate's bindover decision.
The Utah Supreme Court's opinion in
State v. Humphrey sheds important light on
the issue:
"At that point [when the magistrate has ordered the defendant bound
over to answer the charges in the district court], the district court
has the
inherent authority and
the obligation to determine whether its
original jurisdiction has been properly invoked. In doing so, the
district court need show
no deference to the magistrate's legal
conclusion, implicit in the bindover order, that the matter may proceed
to trial in district court, but may conduct its own review of the
order."
State v. Humphrey, 823 P.2d 464 (Utah 1991) (emphasis
added).
Not only does the district court have the authority to review the
bindover decision, but has "the obligation" to determine whether
bindover was proper. A district court will not normally review the
bindover decision
sua sponte. Instead, the court will make the review upon the filing of a proper motion to quash the bindover.
Rule
12
of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that motions
challenging jurisdiction should normally be
brought at least seven days before trial. Because a motion to quash
bindover is in some respects a challenge to the district court's
jurisdiction, it should at a minimum be brought seven days before
trial. In practice, the motion to quash bindover is usually brought as
soon as
the necessary transcripts are available to support the motion. It is
the better general practice to file the motion to quash bindover as
soon as possible.
Proceeding
to trial without filing a motion to quash bindover is viewed by
appellate courts of a waiver of any defect in the bindover order.
Because quantum of evidence necessary to support a sufficiency challenge
on appeal is greater than what is required to support a bindover
decision, some courts have reasoned that any defect in the bindover
decision is cured by the presentation of greater evidence at trial.
*Note that under Utah's current court structure, the "magistrate" at a
preliminary hearing is actually a district court judge acting in the
role of magistrate. Under the previous system that involved both
circuit courts and district courts, the magistrate acted only in the
circuit courts and had jurisdiction that was limited to
misdemeanors, and felony charges only through the preliminary hearing
stage. Following a bindover order, the defendant's case was moved to
the district court. Under the current system, both the preliminary
hearing and jury trial in a felony case will be handled in the district
court.
Choosing a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

If
you are facing prosecution for criminal charges in Utah, it is vital to
have the assistance of an experienced
criminal defense attorney. Utah
criminal lawyer Stephen Howard has
successfully defended clients facing
charges ranging from homicide to DUI, and virtually everything in
between.
Contact us today to
arrange for a confidential consultation.
RELATED CRIMINAL DEFENSE QUESTIONS