Case Brief: State v. Lucke, 2025 UT App 49

Posted by Stone River Criminal Defense Team

Last Updated: May 1, 2025

In State v. Lucke, 2025 UT App 49, the Utah Court of Appeals overturned a stalking conviction after finding the trial court failed to ensure the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The case underscores strict constitutional requirements for self-representation and reaffirms that courts must conduct meaningful, on-the-record inquiries before allowing defendants to proceed without an attorney.
attorney meeting with client at desk

Facts

Scott Nicholas Lucke was convicted of felony stalking after texting his ex-wife, who had a civil stalking injunction against him. Despite being warned not to contact her, Lucke sent her a message referencing their child, which led to criminal charges.

At multiple points before trial, the court urged Lucke to accept appointed counsel. He declined each time, expressing distrust of the legal system and skepticism of attorneys. The court ultimately allowed him to proceed pro se, with standby counsel appointed only shortly before trial. Lucke represented himself during the trial and was convicted by a jury. The court sentenced him to prison and issued a permanent stalking injunction.

Issue

Did the district court violate Lucke’s constitutional rights by allowing him to represent himself without ensuring that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel?

Rule

Under both the U.S. and Utah constitutions, a defendant has the right to legal counsel and the right to waive that counsel and represent themselves. But any waiver of counsel must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Courts are expected to conduct a thorough colloquy to confirm that a defendant understands the risks of going pro se.

If this standard isn’t met, and the defendant is allowed to proceed without counsel anyway, it can amount to structural error—an error so serious it invalidates the trial without the need to show prejudice.

Application

The Utah Court of Appeals found that the district court failed on two fronts:

  1. Inadequate Colloquy: The court never fully engaged in a proper dialogue to determine whether Lucke understood what he was giving up. It skipped key questions—like whether his decision was voluntary or whether he grasped the potential penalties and complexities of trial. What did happen was described more as one-sided urging than true back-and-forth questioning.

  2. No Evidence from the Record: Looking beyond the colloquy, the court also found no indication that Lucke understood the responsibilities or legal rules he would be expected to follow. His trial conduct—admitting guilt in opening statements, using irrelevant arguments, and opting out of closing arguments—further supported that conclusion.

Because the right to counsel is fundamental, and because a valid waiver was never shown, the court ruled that this was structural error, requiring automatic reversal.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated Lucke’s conviction and sent the case back for further proceedings. The opinion reinforces that judges must do more than simply ask if a defendant wants a lawyer. They have to make sure the defendant knows what that choice means—or the case risks being overturned no matter the verdict.

Originally Published: May 1, 2025

How can we help you?

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

    Related Articles

    Defense Attorney v. Artificial Intelligence on Expungement
    Assessing eligibility for expungement can be complicated. AI can take you in the wrong direction with bad information. Getting good legal advice from...
    July 3, 2025
    Attorney Profile Bradley Henderson: Firearms and Self-Defense Law in Utah
    At Stone River Law, Attorney Bradley Henderson specializes in criminal defense, leveraging a unique strength: extensive experience in firearms and...
    June 27, 2025
    Cargos de asalto en Utah
    El ataque es un delito penal en Utah que implica intentar o amenazar con causar daños corporales a otra persona. Es importante entender cómo la ley...
    June 27, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?