When can criminal defendants seek extraordinary relief from interlocutory rulings? Gollaher v. State Explained

In Gollaher v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the narrow circumstances under which criminal defendants can obtain extraordinary relief from interlocutory rulings during preliminary proceedings.

Background and Facts

Scott Gollaher faced criminal charges for sodomy on a child and sexual exploitation of a minor. The state’s evidence included pornographic images allegedly showing Gollaher with the child victim. Gollaher’s defense strategy involved calling the alleged victim as a witness and showing her the images, believing she would provide exculpatory testimony that she was not the person depicted. However, defense counsel feared criminal and civil liability under state and federal child pornography laws for possessing or displaying such images. Additionally, federal agents refused to comply fully with Gollaher’s subpoenas, citing Department of Justice regulations. The magistrate denied Gollaher’s motions addressing these issues “without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Gollaher could obtain extraordinary relief under Rule 65B to challenge the magistrate’s interlocutory rulings. Rule 65B requires that petitioners demonstrate “no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available” through normal judicial processes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of extraordinary relief. The court emphasized that appellants must address “the actual basis for the district court’s ruling” in their opening brief. Here, the district court had identified specific remedies available to Gollaher: if bound over for trial, he could file a motion to quash the bindover and potentially an interlocutory appeal. Regarding the federal agents’ non-compliance, the district court noted Gollaher could challenge the DOJ’s authorization decision in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act. Because Gollaher failed to engage with these alternative remedies in his opening brief, the court found he had not carried his burden of persuasion.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that extraordinary relief petitions must meticulously address why ordinary judicial remedies are inadequate. Criminal practitioners should carefully analyze available procedural options before seeking Rule 65B relief, and appellate briefs must directly confront the trial court’s specific reasoning regarding alternative remedies.