Do defendants charged with Class A misdemeanors have a right to preliminary hearings in Utah? State v. Hernandez Explained

In a significant decision for Utah criminal defense practitioners, the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Hernandez held that defendants charged with Class A misdemeanors are entitled to preliminary hearings under article I, section 13 of the Utah Constitution.

Background and Facts

Victor Hernandez was charged with four Class A misdemeanors: negligent homicide, obstruction of justice, unlawful sale/supply of alcohol to minors, and possession of drug paraphernalia. When he requested a preliminary hearing, the district court initially granted the request but later denied it on reconsideration. The court concluded that the specific offenses charged did not exist under Utah territorial law and therefore were not “indictable offenses” entitled to preliminary hearing protections.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether article I, section 13’s protection for “offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment” applies to Class A misdemeanors, and (2) whether the constitutional requirement of “examination and commitment” means a preliminary hearing rather than mere magistrate review of an affidavit.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court examined the historical context of article I, section 13, finding that it refers to Utah territorial law rather than just federal constitutional requirements. Under territorial law, any offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding six months was considered “indictable.” Since Class A misdemeanors carry potential sentences of more than six months, they qualify for preliminary hearing protection. The Court rejected the district court’s approach of limiting protection only to specific offenses that existed under territorial law, instead focusing on the punishment-based classification system.

Regarding the “examination and commitment” requirement, the Court determined this means an actual evidentiary hearing with witness testimony, not mere review of paperwork. The constitutional text’s provision allowing waiver “by the accused with the consent of the State” supports this interpretation, as defendants cannot waive a magistrate’s initial warrant review.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands preliminary hearing rights in Utah. Defense attorneys should now request preliminary hearings for all Class A misdemeanor cases, as this constitutional right requires State consent for waiver. The ruling applies prospectively only to cases without guilty pleas or findings of guilt as of the decision date. Practitioners should note that the preliminary hearing serves the same function as in felony cases—determining probable cause through witness examination and evidence presentation.