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

Posted by Stone River Criminal Defense Team

Last Updated: June 4, 2025

May 2025 - The Utah Supreme Court just made it harder to convict someone of child trafficking without solid proof of a transaction. In State v. Andrus, the court threw out a human trafficking conviction because the evidence didn’t show that anything of value actually changed hands.
attorney meeting with client at desk

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 wheresomething of valueis given or received. That’s what makes itcommercial 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 clearquid 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.

Originally Published: June 4, 2025

How can we help you?

Call us at 801-448-7451, or use this contact form.

    Related Articles

    Why Pretrial Litigation Matters: Shaping the Battlespace
    Most criminal cases don't end in a trial. They're resolved through plea deals that reflect the strength and weaknesses of the case for each party –...
    June 5, 2025
    Criminal Defense, Done Right: Expertise at Every Stage of the Case
    For most people, the justice system is a blur of police reports, court dates, and unfamiliar terms. It moves fast when you least expect it, and slows...
    June 4, 2025
    Types of Court Hearings in Utah Criminal Cases
    Navigating the criminal justice system in Utah can be overwhelming, especially if you're unfamiliar with the various types of court hearings...
    June 4, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?