Background of the Case
Christoffer Alan Harris was charged with serious felony offenses, including kidnapping, rape, and human trafficking involving a 17-year-old minor. Following his arrest, the court ordered Harris held without bail pending trial due to the risk he posed to the victim and the community, and that he was a flight risk.
Harris initially moved for pretrial release, but the trial court denied that request. He did not appeal the decision. Months later, Harris filed a Motion to Modify the order, arguing that new DNA evidence weakened the prosecution’s case and justified release. The court rejected this argument, finding no “material change in circumstances,” and continued his detention. Harris attempted to appeal this denial directly.
What the Court Decided
The central question before the Utah Supreme Court was whether a defendant has a right to immediately appeal a trial court’s decision not to modify an existing pretrial detention order.
The Court ruled no—Utah law only allows an immediate, expedited appeal when the trial court initially issues a pretrial detention order. A subsequent decision to maintain that detention, such as denying a motion to modify, is not automatically appealable.
In its analysis, the Court focused on the plain language of Utah Code § 77-20-209, which grants the right to an expedited appeal when a court “issues a pretrial status order that orders the individual be detained.” The justices found that a denial of a motion to modify does not issue a new detention order—it simply upholds the prior one. Therefore, it does not trigger the statutory right to appeal.
If a defendant wants to challenge such a denial, the proper route is to request interlocutory review—a discretionary appeal allowed in certain circumstances—but Harris had not done so within the required timeframe.
What This Means Going Forward
- No Automatic Appeals for Modifications: A court’s decision not to change an existing detention order is not appealable as of right. Appellate courts can hear such challenges only if you follow the process for interlocutory appeals.
-
Strict Deadlines Apply: Both direct appeals and petitions for interlocutory review are subject to short filing deadlines. Missing those windows can limit your options.
Dissenting View
Chief Justice Durrant dissented, arguing that continued detention should qualify for appeal under the statute. He reasoned that pretrial detention decisions evolve over time and that each order maintaining detention has real consequences. He warned that limiting appeals to only initial detention orders contradicts the intent of the law and may lead to unjust outcomes in long-running cases.
Key Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel
The decision in State v. Harris reinforces the importance of acting quickly when a client is detained pretrial. If a judge orders detention, and you believe it’s unjustified, the time to appeal is immediately after that order—not months later through a modification motion. Otherwise, you’re likely locked in unless you can successfully pursue interlocutory review.
Need Help with a Pretrial Detention Issue?
If you or a loved one is facing pretrial detention, it’s essential to understand your rights and the narrow timelines for challenging those decisions. Our experienced criminal defense team can help you assess your options and take swift action.