Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Utah
Criminal Defense Attorney Stephen Howard
Call Criminal Defense Attorney in Utah
Call Utah Criminal Lawyer
Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyers / Former Prosecutors
Call 801-449-1409 now to see what the right attorney can do for you.
Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer Salt Lake City

Criminal Defense Solutions Start HereSM

Finding a Felony Defense LawyerChoosing a Misdemeanor Defense LawyerDrug and Alcohol Crimes Defense LawyerWhite Collar Defense Attorney for Utah ChargesAttorney for Expungements Reductions and PardonsDefendant Constitutional Rights Criminal LawyerBail and Bond Alternatives in UtahReasons for Hope Facing Criminal Charges

Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act Defense Attorney

The constitutionality of the “cohabitant” penalties was unsuccessfully challenged in the Utah Court of Appeals case of State v. Salt, 2015 UT App 72, on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth. But a potential alternate challenge on grounds of equal protection was not raised by the defense in that appeal, and thus not addressed by the court.

If you are facing prosecution for domestic violence under the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act, or other criminal charges, the assistance of an experienced criminal defense lawyer is vital. Contact us now to arrange for an initial confidential consultation with criminal attorney Stephen Howard.

Equal Protection - Challenging the Constitutionality of Utah’s Domestic Violence Enhanced Penalties

Equal Protection Challenge to the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act

Under a equal protection analysis, a statute will be presumed to be constitutionally valid when the classification created by the statute is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). The Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act creates two classes of individuals: those who are “cohabitants” and therefore subject to harsher penalties; and those who are not “cohabitants” and therefore subject to less severe penalties.

Definition and Class Creation

The Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act provides a sweeping definition for the term “cohabitant” as it applies to certain domestic violence crimes. This definition includes people who are related by blood or by marriage, as well as people who have chosen to live in the “same residence.” The “same residence” prong of the cohabitant definition can be applied without regard to the existence (or nonexistence) of any romantic or intimate relationship. The “same residence” prong of the definition can also be applied even after the two people no longer reside together - without any time limitation.

Thus, by punishing individuals who have previously shared a residence more harshly than individuals have not, the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act creates two classes of individuals. To justify this disparate treatment of the two classes, the law must be shown to serve some legitimate government interest.

Legitimate State Interest

In Salt, the Utah Court of Appeals opined that “the Cohabitant Abuse Act is designed to promote the value of the relationships the act encompasses by discouraging physical violence in such relationships.” The court noted that the broad definition of the term “cohabitant” could “theoretically bring within its reach such attenuated relationships as, for example, former roommates,” and acknowledged that this “may raise questions of policy. . . .” But the court did not address the issue of a possible equal protection violation.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged in Salt that the “cohabitant” definition can cover relationships that are so “attenuated” that “questions of policy” are implicated by the application of the cohabitant enhancements. Public policy questions are generally avoided by the courts, on the theory that such matters are better left to the legislature. Under an equal protection challenge to the statute, the defendant must show that “no legitimate state interest” is served by the classification that is created by the statute. But because no equal protection challenge was made by the defendant in Salt, the court did not address the question of whether such relationships can become so “attenuated” that the statute no longer serves any legitimate state interest.

Consider, for example, the hypothetical example of two former college roommates who bump into each other in a bar, twenty years after they both graduated from college. Imagine these two former roommates getting drunk, getting in an argument, and one getting pushed to the ground by the other. Police are called, an arrest is made, and a charge of assault is filed.

In such a situation, the crime of assault has been committed. If the two individuals had been strangers, standard jail time and other penalties would apply; but there would be no “cohabitant” enhancement. Since the two individuals are former roommates, the standard jail time and other penalties can still apply; but the charges and penalties can also be enhanced under the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act.

The relevant question under an equal protection challenge to the statute is whether any “legitimate state interest” is served by punishing the defendant more harshly simply because he had at one time (more than twenty years earlier) shared a college dorm room with the victim. Has the relationship become so “attenuated” that the relationship is no longer one which the state has a legitimate interest in promoting? This is a question that remains unanswered in the Utah courts and one which may provide grounds for challenging the constitutionality of the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act.

Other Possible Constitutional Challenges to the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act Enhanced Penalties

- Unconstitutional Vagueness
- Unconstitutional Overbreadth

Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney in Salt Lake City

Salt Lake Criminal Defense LawyerIf you are facing prosecution for domestic violence or other criminal charges, the assistance of an experienced criminal lawyer is critical. Mr. Howard has successfully assisted clients facing charges ranging from homicide to minor misdemeanors, and virtually everything in between. Contact us now to arrange for an initial confidential consultation.

Best Rating
Make a Payment to Your Account
Get Help Now
Name: Email: Phone: Describe your legal needs here:
I accept the disclaimer below.
Disclaimer: No attorney-client relationship is established by the use of this form. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be submitted through this form. By clicking 'submit' I am only requesting that I be contacted for the purpose of obtaining legal services.

This form protected by reCAPTCHA.

  • Selected Victories
  • Criminal Defense AttorneyDismissed - Charges of insurance fraud were brought when investigators found reason to believe that client's claim of injury was fraudulent. Client was seen kicking a soccer ball, and investigators concluded that the injury claim was false. By obtaining medical records and other administrative records, and by pointing out to the prosecutor that the alleged injury interferred with the client's ability to lift - not his ability to kick a ball - the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case.
  • Minor Possession Alcohol - MIP AttorneyDismissed - Minor in possession charge (MIP) was dismissed by prosecutor when defense analysis demonstrated that the police had failed to obtain necessary evidence against client. Police had raided a large party involving underage drinking. Several individuals were charged, but police did not obtain evidence showing that client had personally consumed or possessed alcohol. Case was dismissed.
  • 402 Reduction Lawyer Utah 2-Step Reduction - Client needed a two-step reduction to bring a prior conviction to the misdemeanor level. Collection of substantial evidence of reform and rehabilitation convinced a normally reluctant prosecutor to stipulate to the defense 402 reduction motion.
  • Utah Burglary Attorney Not Guilty - Client was charged with residential felony burglary and theft charges. Effective cross-examination of alleged victim at preliminary hearing resulted in an admission by the alleged victim that the charges were based on a false report to police, made for the purpose of getting revenge against the defendant. Case was dismissed outright.
Best Criminal Defense Strategy

The best outcome is more likely when the right strategy is employed. Developing the best strategy can require real courtroom experience, a thorough understanding of procedural and substantive legal issues, and a determination to ensure that important constitutional and other legal rights are protected. Choosing the right attorney....

Strategy »
Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Profile Utah

With decades of combined experience, our criminal defense team attorneys have the knowledge, skill, and determination to help you achieve the results you need. Facing criminal prosecution in Utah can have serious consequences. Choosing the best attorney to defend your case may be one of the most important decisions you will ever make....

Experience »
Conviction Consequences - Utah Criminal Defense

A Utah criminal prosecution can result in a lifetime of consequences. Beyond jail and prison, a conviction can affect many areas of life, including employment, housing, finances, family, and much more. Never plead guilty without first consulting with an experienced criminal attorney. Understanding what is at stake is the first step....

Consequences »
Utah Criminal Defense Attorney - Hope

Facing criminal prosecution in Utah can feel like your world is collapsing. But there are reasons to remain hopeful, and there are things you can do right now that can help increase the odds of a successful outcome. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help you evaluate the various options you have, and can help you....

Reasons to Hope »
Home | Attorney Profile | Case Results | Criminal Code | FAQ | Legal Resources | Defense Strategy | Contact Us

Serving Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache, Tooele, Summit, Box Elder, and Wasatch Counties, and all of Utah.

Attorney Stephen Howard practices as part of the Canyons Law Group, LLC and Stephen W. Howard, PC.

Offices in Salt Lake and Davis Counties
560 South 300 East, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
952 S. Main St., Suite A, Layton, UT 84041

Call now to arrange for a confidential initial consultation with an experienced and effective Utah criminal defense lawyer.

In Salt Lake City, call 801-449-1409.
In Davis County, call 801-923-4345.

Stephen W. Howard, PC

The materials in this website are intended for informational purposes only, and are not legal advice. Viewing or responding to materials in this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Read Full Disclaimer.