Facts:
In 2016, Cooke crashed his semitruck on I-15 in Utah County, killing one person and seriously injuring another. A blood test revealed methamphetamine in his system, and investigators believed Cooke fell asleep at the wheel after exceeding federally allowed hours of service. He was charged under Utah Code § 58-37-8(2)(g) (2016) for negligently operating a vehicle with a measurable controlled substance in his body, causing death and serious injury—both second-degree felonies.
Before his 2022 trial, the Utah Legislature repealed and replaced the statute, raising the mental state for criminal liability from simple negligence to criminal negligence, and relocating the law to a new section in the criminal code. The district court initially dismissed the charges, but later reversed that ruling after finding that Utah’s general saving statute, Utah Code § 68-3-5, preserved Cooke’s prosecution under the repealed law.
Issue:
Can the State continue prosecuting Cooke under a statute that was repealed before trial, or must the charges be dismissed because the law no longer exists?
Rule:
Utah’s general saving statute, § 68-3-5, provides that the repeal of a statute does not affect “any action or proceeding commenced under or by virtue of the statute repealed.”
Application:
The Utah Supreme Court held that the general saving statute applies to criminal prosecutions. The plain language covers all actions and proceedings, including those under repealed criminal statutes, so long as they were initiated before repeal. Cooke’s prosecution had already begun when the statute was repealed, making it a “proceeding commenced” under the former law.
Cooke argued that precedent from Belt v. Turner (1971) required dismissal, based on courts applying ameliorative sentencing amendments retroactively. But the Court clarified that Belt only applies to changes in sentencing—where a law reduces penalties before a defendant is sentenced—not to repeals of the underlying criminal statute itself.
The Court also rejected Cooke’s claim that his prosecution was invalid because the legislature had effectively decriminalized his conduct. The updated law didn’t remove the offense but modified the elements. That wasn’t enough to override the general saving statute, especially since the legislature didn’t indicate an intent to invalidate ongoing prosecutions.
Conclusion:
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling. Cooke’s prosecution under the repealed statute can proceed because the saving statute explicitly allows pending actions to continue despite repeal. Belt doesn’t apply, and the legislature did not express an intent to abandon prosecutions like Cooke’s.
Key Takeaway:
In Utah, if a criminal prosecution starts before a statute is repealed, it can still go forward—even if the law is later amended or replaced—unless the legislature clearly says otherwise.