Can Utah prosecute residents for failing to support children in other states? State v. Johnson Explained

In State v. Johnson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah has jurisdiction to prosecute a Utah resident for criminal nonsupport when the children live in another state. This case establishes important precedent for concurrent jurisdiction in criminal nonsupport prosecutions.

Background and Facts: Richard Johnson, a Utah resident, was charged with criminal nonsupport for failing to pay child support ordered by an Alaska divorce decree. His children resided in Alaska and had never lived in or visited Utah. Johnson moved to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that his offense occurred wholly in Alaska where his duty to support his children existed. The district court denied the motion, finding Utah had jurisdiction under the plain language of Utah’s Criminal Jurisdiction Statute and Criminal Nonsupport Statute.

Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-201 grants Utah jurisdiction when a Utah resident’s failure to pay child support constitutes “conduct” that is “any element” of criminal nonsupport occurring within Utah. The court had to determine whether the defendant’s omission—his failure to pay support—occurred partly in Utah despite the children residing in Alaska.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court affirmed the district court’s jurisdiction determination. Relying on the Model Penal Code definition of “conduct” as including omissions, the court found that Johnson’s failure to provide support was conduct occurring in Utah. The court distinguished prior cases and emphasized that criminal nonsupport is a continuing offense that can occur where either the parent or child resides. The court noted policy reasons supporting Utah’s jurisdiction, including preventing Utah from becoming a haven for those avoiding support obligations.

Practice Implications: This decision establishes that Utah and other states may have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal nonsupport cases. Practitioners should understand that residence-based jurisdiction arguments may fail when the jurisdiction statute broadly defines conduct to include omissions. The ruling also suggests courts will consider policy factors favoring prosecution in the defendant’s state of residence, particularly regarding access to financial records and judicial economy.