This guide explains the history behind Utah Code 76-5-109.4, why it was created, how prosecutors are using it, how it differs from traditional child-abuse laws, and why these cases are far more complicated than most people realize. It also explains how accidents and misjudgments can lead to criminal charges in Utah — a problem highlighted by cases like the one of the Utah father whose children went missing on a hiking trip, which drew national attention.
As a criminal defense firm, our goal is simple: to give you clarity, protect your rights, and prevent prosecutors from turning misfortune into a felony.
Why Utah Created a Child Torture Statute
A response to extreme, prolonged abuse
Utah created the child-torture law after a wave of disturbing cases shocked the public. The most influential incident involved former YouTuber Ruby Franke and her counselor and business partner, Jodi Hildebrandt. Their case involved:
- starvation
- duct-taping
- isolation
- psychological manipulation
- long-term patterns of serious physical and emotional harm
These facts revealed a perceived gap in Utah’s legal framework. Before 2025, prosecutors relied on aggravated child abuse, which covered serious injuries but did not require or explicitly define:
- extreme cruelty
- depraved conduct
- prolonged abuse
- systemic patterns of serious harm
Public outrage grew. Advocacy groups argued that the existing statutes did not reflect the severity of the worst cases. Prosecutors asked for clearer tools. Legislators agreed.
In 2025, Utah enacted Utah Code 76-5-109.4, creating the offense of child torture, effective May 7, 2025.
The New Law: What Child Torture Means Under 76-5-109.4
The statute targets two types of conduct. A person commits child torture when they intentionally or knowingly cause or permit a serious injury to a child through:
A. Exceptionally cruel or depraved conduct
The act must cause extreme physical or psychological pain or anguish.
B. A course of conduct or prolonged pattern of serious injuries
Two or more serious injuries can now be labeled a “pattern” or “course of conduct” that supports a torture charge.
Both paths require serious injury, not minor harm.
Mandatory minimum sentence
Child torture carries:
- 10 years to life in prison, minimum
- Judges may reduce the minimum to 7 years or 4 years only in rare “interests of justice” findings
- Mandatory incarceration — probation is not allowed
This is one of the harshest non-homicide penalties in Utah.
How Child Torture Differs From Child Abuse and Aggravated Child Abuse
Understanding the differences is critical, especially for those under investigation.
A. Child Abuse (76-5-109)
- Covers minor injuries (bruises, abrasions, psychological harm, malnutrition)
- Allows reckless and negligent conduct
- Charges range from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor
- Judges retain full discretion
B. Aggravated Child Abuse (76-5-109.2)
- Requires serious injury (fractures, burns, brain injuries, strangulation, starvation, severe emotional harm, etc.)
- Can be intentional, reckless, or negligent
- Penalties range from a Class A misdemeanor to a first-degree felony
- No mandatory prison
C. Child Torture (76-5-109.4)
- Requires intentional or knowing conduct
- Requires serious injury plus cruelty or a pattern
- Mandatory minimum 10-year prison sentence
- Reserved (theoretically) for the most severe cases
In theory, these laws create a clean hierarchy. In practice, prosecutors often stretch the boundaries — and that is where the danger lies.
How Prosecutors Are Charging Child Torture in Utah
Utah prosecutors began charging child torture almost immediately after the law took effect. In one of the first cases, the Salt Lake County District Attorney charged two defendants with child torture for repeated physical abuse of a toddler.
This fast adoption shows that prosecutors see the statute as a powerful tool.
Why prosecutors prefer the torture charge
- It carries a mandatory minimum
- It gives prosecutors more leverage in plea negotiations
- It sounds more severe to juries
- It enhances political visibility
- It pressures defendants to plead out to lesser charges
When one statute offers more power, prosecutors will use it — sometimes aggressively.
The Risk of Overcharging Under the New Torture Statute
The child-torture law was written for extreme abuse. But broad terms like “exceptionally cruel” and “course of conduct” can be stretched. This raises a real danger: ordinary parenting mistakes or accidents may be cast as intentional cruelty.
This is not speculation. It is already happening in related child-abuse cases.
The Utah Hiking Case: When Misfortune Becomes Crime
(Referenced in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/utah-dad-child-abuse-hike.html)
The New York Times reported on a Utah father who took his children hiking. The family got lost. The children were exposed to the cold overnight. No torture. No malicious conduct. No intent. Yet prosecutors charged the father with child abuse.
The article highlighted a disturbing trend:
When legislatures create narrow, highly specific child-injury statutes, prosecutors often use them to criminalize accidents.
A simple misjudgment becomes a criminal act. A moment of poor planning becomes a felony. A parent’s mistake becomes a threat to their freedom.
The same risk now applies — even more dramatically — with the child-torture statute.
How Prosecutors Can Stretch the Child Torture Statute
The child-torture law was meant for extreme cases, but broad language always invites creative charging. We see several ways prosecutors may push the statute beyond what lawmakers intended.
“Course of conduct” can balloon quickly
All it takes is two serious injuries. They do not have to be connected. They do not have to come from the same event. If a child has a medical issue one week and an accidental injury the next, the state may try to paint those incidents as a “pattern.” That kind of leap can turn a chaotic parenting stretch into a first-degree felony.
The idea of “exceptionally cruel” is not fixed
What one person calls cruelty, another might see as strict discipline or a bad decision made under pressure. When prosecutors want to escalate a case, they often use this phrase as a catch-all. Without careful scrutiny, routine parenting decisions or panic-driven reactions can be recast as depravity.
Intent often gets guessed at, not proven
Child-injury cases are emotional. Under stress, officers and forensic interviewers may assume the worst. A parent who hesitates, stumbles in their explanation, or appears overwhelmed can be accused of “knowing” or “intentional” conduct even when the facts point to confusion or fear, not malice.
Mandatory minimums change everything
The ten-year minimum gives prosecutors enormous leverage. Once that charge is filed, the threat of decades in prison hangs over the entire case. Many defendants plead guilty simply to avoid the risk of a much harsher sentence. Innocent people feel that pressure too.
Public outrage can steer charging decisions
High-profile cases and media attention invite political heat. When the public demands action, prosecutors tend to file the most serious charge available, even when the evidence is thin. The child-torture statute, with its severe language and heavy penalties, becomes an easy choice.
The bottom line: a law written for the worst of the worst can sweep in cases that do not come close to torture. That is why early, careful defense work is so important.
Why Child-Injury Cases Are More Complex Than Most People Realize
Many child-injury cases involve issues prosecutors rarely acknowledge:
- old bruises mistaken for new
- birth injuries mistaken for abuse
- childhood medical conditions
- normal toddler behavior
- accidental falls
- biased DCFS reporting
- mandatory reporters who overreact
- medical providers who default to worst-case scenarios
These cases require expert investigation, not assumptions.
How We Approach Child Torture and Child Abuse Cases
Defending these cases is never about a single issue. It’s about pulling apart every assumption the state makes. We start with the evidence. Medical findings in child-injury cases are often overstated or misunderstood, so we bring in our own experts to review scans, records, and timelines. Many “serious injuries” turn out not to be what the state claims.
We also dig into intent. Prosecutors tend to assume that any bad outcome reflects a deliberate choice. Real life is messier. Parents make mistakes, kids get hurt, and stressful situations lead to actions that look worse on paper than they were in the moment. Showing how and why something happened can completely change the state’s narrative.
When the state alleges a “course of conduct,” we look closely at every injury they list. It is common to see old bruises, normal childhood scrapes, or unrelated medical issues lumped together as if they tell one story. They usually don’t.
Witness statements deserve the same scrutiny. DCFS workers, mandatory reporters, and even medical providers often jump to conclusions. We test those assumptions, examine the interviews, and look for gaps in the investigation.
And of course, we protect your rights at every step. You have the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, and the right to a fair process. These cases move fast, and investigators often try to get statements before people understand the stakes.
Finally, we keep a close eye on the charges. Child torture carries a mandatory prison term, so prosecutors sometimes use it as a hammer. When that happens, we push back hard. Overcharging is common in these cases, and it can be corrected with a strong, early defense.
The sooner we get involved, the better the chances of stopping a bad situation from turning into a life-altering prosecution.
What to Do If You Are Under Investigation
If police, DCFS, or a medical provider have raised concerns:
Do not explain yourself to investigators
Your statements can be misunderstood or taken out of context.
Do not agree to an interview without counsel
Utah investigators are trained to elicit admissions.
Document everything
Messages, timelines, injuries, medical history — small details matter.
Get legal counsel immediately
The earliest stage is where cases are won or lost.
Conclusion: The Child Torture Law Solved One Problem and Created Another
Utah needed a statute to address extreme, prolonged abuse. The Franke–Hildebrandt case proved that. But the new child-torture law also created new risks:
- more tools for prosecutors
- broader opportunities to criminalize accidents
- mandatory prison that pressures innocent people to plead
- vague standards that can sweep in non-criminal conduct
When the law becomes this powerful, the defense becomes even more important.
If you or someone you love is facing allegations of child abuse, aggravated child abuse, or child torture, you need an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney who understands how these cases work, how prosecutors think, and how to fight back.