State v. Clayton
State v. Clayton, 2023 UT App 84 (Harris, J.)
Clayton was bound over on criminal charges. Clayton challenged the bind over, arguing the statements in the evidence were inadmissible because the declarants and did not write the statements themselves. The district court rejected his argument, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court did not err under the then-existing version of the rule, which did not require the statement to be written by the declarant.
- Practice Tip: Clayton’s argument would likely be correct today under the newly amended rule forbidding any “prosecutor, or any staff for the office of the prosecutor” from “draft[ing] a statement for a declarant.”