What Happened in State v. Smith?
Jamison Smith was charged in 2022 with 33 counts of felony sexual abuse. Two of those charges involved his sister, C.R., who said Smith abused her between 1988 and 1990. Smith asked the court to dismiss those two charges, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations.
Here’s where it gets complicated. In 1983, Utah law required prosecutors to file charges for child sexual abuse within one year of the victim reporting the offense to law enforcement, and no more than eight years after the abuse occurred. Later laws extended or eliminated that time limit, but only if the statute of limitations hadn’t already expired.
C.R. told police in 2021 that when she was in seventh grade—around 1988—she was pulled out of class and asked about the abuse. But she didn’t know who questioned her or whether they were police officers.
Smith argued that this conversation counted as a report to law enforcement, which would mean the deadline to file charges had long passed. The State disagreed, saying there’s no proof law enforcement was involved.
The trial court held a hearing but said the facts were too unclear to decide. So it left the statute-of-limitations question for the jury to resolve at trial.
What Did the Utah Supreme Court Decide?
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court. It ruled that judges—not juries—must decide statute-of-limitations issues in criminal cases. The Court cited Utah Code § 76-1-306, which provides that a judge must decide whether a case is time-barred by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not).
The trial court relied on an older 1989 case (State v. Pierce, 782 P.2d 194) that allowed juries to decide these questions when the facts were disputed. But the Supreme Court said that the rule is outdated. When lawmakers passed §76-1-306 in 1998, it overruled the old approach. Judges now have the duty to make the final call—even when the evidence is murky.
Because the trial court failed to apply the correct law or make any factual findings, the Supreme Court remanded the case. Now, the trial judge must decide if the charges related to C.R. are still valid under the law.
Why This Case Matters
This decision has major implications for Utah criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, and defendants:
- Statute of limitations defenses must be resolved by a judge, not a jury.
- Judges must decide the issue using a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Older criminal cases, especially those involving child sexual abuse, may face more scrutiny when records are missing or memories fade.
The ruling helps clarify the process for challenging criminal charges based on age. It gives defense attorneys a stronger path to raise statute-of-limitations arguments and forces courts to address them early—before trial.
Final Takeaway
In State v. Smith, the Utah Supreme Court strengthened judges’ role in determining whether a criminal case can proceed. If the statute of limitations is at issue, it’s the judge’s job to decide if the prosecution is still legally allowed.
For defendants, this creates a clearer opportunity to challenge outdated charges. For prosecutors, it’s a reminder to build a solid record when relying on decades-old allegations.