When must Utah courts sever unrelated criminal charges? State v. Hildreth Explained

In State v. Hildreth, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts must grant motions to sever criminal charges, establishing important precedent for proper joinder under Utah Code section 77-8a-1.

Background and Facts

Grant Hildreth, a licensed chiropractor, was charged with eight counts of forcible sexual abuse involving five female patients he treated between 2004 and 2007. He filed a motion requesting the trial court sever the counts and hold separate trials for each alleged victim. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that joinder was proper because evidence from each victim would be admissible under Rule 404(b) to show absence of mistake, motive, mental state, and plan. At trial, Hildreth was convicted on two counts involving one victim but acquitted on all other charges.

Key Legal Issues

The court analyzed whether the charges satisfied the requirements for joinder under Utah Code section 77-8a-1(1), which permits joining offenses that are either: (a) based on the same conduct or otherwise connected in their commission, or (b) part of a common scheme or plan. The court also examined whether the trial court properly considered prejudice to the defendant.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held the trial court abused its discretion by denying the severance motion. The charges were not “connected in their commission” because they lacked a direct relationship—none was precipitated by another or committed to conceal others. The court also found no “common scheme or plan,” noting the incidents involved different body parts, different levels of undress, different types of touching, and occurred across a three-year span from 2004 to 2007. The court emphasized that while temporal proximity combined with striking similarities can establish a common scheme, the significant time gaps and factual variations here precluded such a finding.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts cannot rely solely on Rule 404(b) analysis to justify improper joinder. Defense counsel should specifically challenge both prongs of section 77-8a-1(1) in severance motions, emphasizing factual distinctions and temporal gaps between alleged offenses. The ruling also reinforces that courts must “resolve the issue in favor of assuring the defendant a fair trial” when joinder questions present close calls.