Can a criminal defendant seek extraordinary relief before conviction? Salt Lake City v. Newman Explained

In Salt Lake City v. Newman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a criminal defendant could seek extraordinary relief before conviction when ordinary appeal procedures were inadequate. The case involved an active duty military member facing potential discharge due to federal firearms restrictions for domestic violence convictions.

Background and Facts: Gary Newman, an active duty military member, was charged with battery under Salt Lake City’s domestic violence ordinance. Newman argued the ordinance unconstitutionally conflicted with Utah’s assault statute. He filed a petition for extraordinary relief in district court, claiming that if convicted, federal law would prohibit him from possessing firearms, likely resulting in military discharge before he could appeal through normal procedures.

Key Legal Issues: The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether Newman could properly seek extraordinary relief under these circumstances, and (2) whether the Salt Lake City ordinance unconstitutionally conflicted with state law. The analysis required examining both Rule 65B requirements and principles of statutory interpretation regarding municipal ordinances.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court recognized that extraordinary relief may be available when normal appeal procedures are inadequate due to permanent consequences flowing from conviction. However, the court concluded the battery ordinance was constitutional because it shared a common purpose with the assault statute and did not forbid what state law permitted. The ordinance required a higher mental state (willful conduct versus recklessness) and applied only within city limits, making it complementary rather than conflicting legislation.

Practice Implications: This decision establishes that extraordinary relief may be available in criminal cases when conviction would trigger irreversible consequences that make ordinary appeal inadequate. However, practitioners must demonstrate that the lower court exceeded jurisdiction, abused discretion, or failed to perform a required act. The ruling also clarifies that municipal ordinances are valid unless they literally forbid what state statutes permit, not merely because they address similar subject matter differently.