In this appeal the Utah Supreme Court clarified what has been known as the “Brickey rule” stemming from the case State v. Brickey (Utah 1986). This rule is concerned with when the State may refile criminal charges after failing to establish probable cause in a preliminary hearing.
Facts of the Case
Kyli Labrum was charged with rape and forcible sexual abuse after beginning a sexual relationship with the sixteen-year-old son of Labrum’s close friend. Labrum had been close with her friend’s children for nearly a decade, spending time attending their sporting events and watching over their house and dog.
Under Utah law, rape includes an element of nonconsent. The assigned prosecutor thus planned to present both a special trust theory (arguing Labrum occupied a position of special trust in relation to the victim) and an enticement theory (arguing Labrum enticed or coerced the victim to engage in sexual activity). Due to a scheduling conflict, a stand-in prosecutor attended the preliminary hearing and chose to only argue the special trust theory. When the Judge rejected this theory, the stand-in prosecutor moved to reduce the rape charges to unlawful sexual conduct, an offense that does not require proof of nonconsent.
Shortly thereafter the assigned prosecutor returned to the case and motioned for reconsideration of the Judge’s decision. While the deadline to appeal the bindover decision passed during this time, the Judge suggested the State could refile the charges. The original case was dismissed, and the rape and forcible sexual abuse charges were refiled as a new case.
Labrum moved to dismiss the newly filed rape charges, arguing that the Utah Constitution’s Due Process Clause, as interpreted by State v. Brickey, prevented the State from refiling charges that had previously been dismissed for insufficient evidence. Labrum contended that the State was harassing her by refiling the charges and lacked good cause for refiling. The Judge granted Labrum’s motion to dismiss and the State promptly appealed that decision.
Issue
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether State v. Brickey, when properly interpreted, prevented the State from refiling charges after failing to establish probable cause in a preliminary hearing.
Rule and Analysis
In State v. Brickey (Utah 1986) the Court ruled that a prosecutor may refile charges that were previously dismissed when new evidence has surfaced or other good cause justifies refiling. When charges are refiled they must, whenever possible, be refiled before the same judge. The judge will then determine whether the new circumstances are sufficient to justify a new bindover hearing. The court in Brickey reasoned these requirements would help prevent harassment of defendants through the refiling of groundless claims or forum shopping.
Cases issued in the years since Brickey, however, shifted these guidelines away from their grounding in the Utah Constitution’s Due Process Clause. State v. Morgan (Utah 2001) essentially interpreted Brickey to be a prophylactic rule that required prosecutors to affirmatively justify their intent whenever refiling previously dismissed charges.
Here, the Utah Supreme Court reasoned that Morgan had misinterpreted Brickey. The Court ruled that once the State has refiled charges, the defense may file a Brickey motion, arguing that the refiling was done in bad faith or with intent to harass. Only then, is the State required to respond and justify their intent in refiling the previously dismissed charges.
In Labrum’s case, the State attempted to refile charges under the enticing theory of non-consent which had previously been unargued at the preliminary hearing. The State contends that the assigned prosecutor fully intended for the enticing theory to be argued in the original preliminary hearing. Alleged miscommunication with the stand-in prosecutor, however, led to only the special-trust theory being argued. This would indicate the judge could reasonably find that refiling the rape charges was not done in bad faith, and the State should be allowed to defend their intent before the trial court judge.
Conclusion
After clarifying the Brickey rule, the Utah Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order dismissing the refiled charges. The Court held that Labrum may file a Brickey motion arguing that the State refiled charges in bad faith. The State will then be allowed to defend its intent in refiling the dismissed rape charges.