Utah Court of Appeals
When can plaintiffs challenge Utah criminal statutes without being prosecuted? D.A.R. v. State Explained
Summary
An unmarried adult challenged Utah’s sodomy and fornication statutes after engaging in consensual sexual conduct with a seventeen-year-old. The trial court dismissed for lack of standing, finding no credible threat of prosecution.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about standing requirements when plaintiffs seek to challenge criminal statutes they have violated but for which they have never been prosecuted.
Background and Facts
D.A.R., an unmarried adult under 24, engaged in consensual sexual conduct with a seventeen-year-old woman that violated Utah’s sodomy and fornication statutes. Though never prosecuted or threatened with prosecution, he filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that these statutes were unconstitutional and requesting a permanent injunction preventing future prosecution. The State moved to dismiss for lack of standing, which the trial court granted.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether D.A.R. had standing to challenge Utah’s sodomy and fornication statutes under Utah’s three-step standing inquiry: (1) whether plaintiff suffered a distinct and palpable injury; (2) whether others had a more direct interest who could better litigate the issues; and (3) whether the issues were of sufficient public importance to grant standing.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the dismissal, finding D.A.R. failed all three steps of the standing analysis. On palpable injury, the court clarified that Utah’s rare prosecutions under these statutes typically involved either forcible conduct or consensual conduct with fourteen- or fifteen-year-olds who cannot legally consent. The court distinguished cases involving sixteen- or seventeen-year-olds, noting that prosecutions in such cases occurred only alongside other serious criminal charges and were ultimately dropped. The court found no credible basis for D.A.R.’s fear of prosecution.
For the second step, the court determined that defendants actually charged with sodomy alongside more serious offenses would be better-suited plaintiffs. Finally, the court held the issues lacked sufficient public importance given the statutes’ rare enforcement.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights the difficulty of obtaining standing to challenge rarely enforced criminal statutes. Practitioners should identify clients who face credible prosecution threats or seek out defendants already charged as better-positioned challengers. The ruling also clarifies that Utah’s enforcement of sodomy laws focuses on non-consensual conduct or relationships involving minors who cannot legally consent, rather than consensual adult conduct.
Case Details
Case Name
D.A.R. v. State
Citation
2006 UT App 114
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050560-CA
Date Decided
March 23, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A plaintiff lacks standing to challenge Utah’s sodomy and fornication statutes when he has never been prosecuted or credibly threatened with prosecution under these statutes.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law, including standing determinations
Practice Tip
When challenging the constitutionality of rarely enforced criminal statutes, ensure your client faces a credible threat of prosecution or identify defendants who have actually been charged as better-suited plaintiffs.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.