Stone River Law – Criminal Defense Team

Utah Supreme Court Narrows Human Trafficking Law in State v. Andrus

HERE FOR YOU WHEN IT MATTERS.

What Happened

Dustin Giles Andrus was convicted of several crimes after a months-long sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl he met online. One of those charges was human trafficking of a child. The State claimed that Andrus offered the girl money, housing, and marijuana in exchange for sex.

Andrus appealed, arguing that while he may have made offers, he never actually gave her anything in return for sex—at least not in a way the law requires.

What the Law Says

Under Utah law, human trafficking of a child includes any sexual act where “something of value” is given or received. That’s what makes it “commercial sexual activity.” The law doesn’t punish just the sexual contact—it punishes the transaction.

The State said the offer alone should be enough. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court’s Reasoning

The justices ruled that an actual exchange must happen. Offers, without follow-through, don’t count.

In this case, Andrus gave the girl marijuana after they had sex. But she never said it was promised in advance or given in return for sex. She also didn’t recall talking about marijuana beforehand. That made the link too weak.

The Court said that without a clear “quid pro quo”—sex in return for something—the charge couldn’t stand. Offers might support a lesser charge like sexual solicitation, but not human trafficking, which carries much harsher penalties.

Why This Matters

This ruling sets a clear line: Prosecutors must prove that something of value was actually given or received because of the sexual act. It’s not enough to show an offer or suggest an implied trade.

The Court’s decision protects against overcharging and reinforces the need for solid evidence in serious cases. It also helps defense lawyers challenge trafficking charges based on assumptions rather than facts.

The Outcome

Andrus’s conviction for human trafficking was vacated. But the Court upheld other charges, including sexual exploitation of a minor and drug distribution. The ruling doesn’t let him off the hook—but it does raise the bar for future trafficking cases.