Must threats against judges be communicated to the target under Utah law? State v. Johnson Explained

In State v. Johnson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah’s statute criminalizing threats against judges requires that such threats be communicated to the target judge or made with the intent that they reach the judge.

Background and Facts

Johnson was charged with two counts of retaliation against a judge after making threatening statements about two judges presiding over his divorce case. During conversations with his divorce attorney, Johnson stated that opposing counsel’s “life will end” and that the judges were “right up there” with opposing counsel. He told his attorney that one judge was “going to have what’s coming to him” and that “after the first one, the rest are free.” His divorce attorney contacted police after Johnson continued making threats in the courtroom.

Key Legal Issues

Johnson challenged the bindover order, arguing that Utah Code section 76-8-316 requires proof that he made threats with the intent that they be conveyed to the judges. He also sought to exclude his statements under the attorney-client privilege, claiming they were protected communications with his divorce attorney.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected Johnson’s interpretation of the statute, finding that the plain language of section 76-8-316 contains no requirement that threats be communicated to the target or made with intent to communicate. The statute requires only that threats be made with “intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with the judge” or “intent to retaliate against the judge.” The court distinguished State v. Fixel, noting it addressed only one type of threat scenario and did not establish an exclusive communication requirement.

Regarding the privilege claim, the court found that Johnson waived attorney-client privilege when his counsel stipulated to admission of the attorney’s witness statement and recorded conversations at the preliminary hearing.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s judicial retaliation statute criminalizes true threats against judges regardless of whether they are communicated to the target. Practitioners should be aware that waiver of attorney-client privilege can occur through stipulation to admission of privileged materials, even at preliminary proceedings. When challenging statutory interpretations, attorneys should focus on the plain language rather than assuming prior cases establish comprehensive requirements.