Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants escape liability for crimes committed while fleeing police? State v. Young Explained
Summary
Young was convicted of failing to stop at command of law enforcement officer, reckless driving, and DUI after fleeing from campus police officer who approached him while sitting in his car following reports of disorderly conduct. Young circled through a parking lot at 25-30 mph with pedestrians and cars present before being stopped by additional officers.
Analysis
In State v. Young, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant could challenge convictions for crimes committed while fleeing from law enforcement, even if the initial police contact lacked reasonable suspicion.
Background and Facts
After receiving reports of disorderly conduct involving a possibly intoxicated individual, Officer Townsend approached Young, who was sitting in his car on a university campus. When Townsend attempted to speak with Young and commanded him to exit the vehicle, Young put the car in reverse and drove away. Young then circled through the parking lot multiple times at 25-30 mph while pedestrians and vehicles were present. When additional officers arrived and stopped Young, he tested at .114 blood alcohol concentration.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two main issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence supported Young’s convictions for failing to stop at command of law enforcement officer and reckless driving, and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence based on alleged lack of reasonable suspicion for the initial detention.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed both convictions under the sufficiency of evidence standard for bench trials. For the failure to stop charge under Utah Code § 76-8-305.5, the court found adequate evidence that Townsend commanded Young to stop before Young fled, and that Young’s intoxication provided reasonable basis to infer he fled to avoid arrest for DUI. For reckless driving, driving 25-30 mph through a parking lot with pedestrians while intoxicated constituted willful or wanton disregard for safety.
Regarding ineffective assistance, the court applied the principle from State v. Lorenzo that subsequent illegal acts provide independent justification for arrest, regardless of any initial illegality. Young’s reckless flight constituted new, distinct crimes that justified his arrest.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that defendants cannot escape liability for crimes committed during flight from police, even if the initial contact was potentially unlawful. The intervening illegal act doctrine prevents defendants from claiming immunity for subsequent crimes causally connected to alleged police misconduct. Practitioners should note that motions to suppress based on initial detention issues may be futile when clients commit additional crimes during flight.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Young
Citation
2015 UT App 286
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140332-CA
Date Decided
November 27, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Sufficient evidence supported convictions for failing to stop at command of law enforcement officer and reckless driving where defendant fled from officer after verbal command and drove through parking lot at high speed with pedestrians and vehicles present.
Standard of Review
For sufficiency of evidence from bench trial: against the clear weight of the evidence or definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made; for ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on appeal: correctness as a matter of law
Practice Tip
When challenging sufficiency of evidence in bench trials, focus on whether findings are against the clear weight of evidence rather than arguing alternative reasonable inferences.
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.