Can time-barred acts support a pattern of unlawful activity charge? State v. Stewart Explained

In State v. Stewart, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether prosecutors can use evidence of criminal acts that fall outside the statute of limitations to prove a pattern of unlawful activity charge under Utah’s Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act.

Background and Facts

The State charged Stewart with securities fraud and a pattern of unlawful activity. After State v. Taylor and State v. Kay established that securities fraud is not a continuing offense, the State amended its charges to exclude several counts on which the statute of limitations had expired. However, the State still planned to call twelve investors to testify about time-barred fraud acts to prove the pattern charge. Stewart moved to exclude this testimony, arguing that time-barred offenses cannot support a pattern of unlawful activity.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah’s Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act permits prosecutors to establish a pattern using evidence of individual criminal acts that are time-barred under their respective statutes of limitations. The district court had ruled that pattern charges must be predicated on acts that are themselves chargeable.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court reversed, focusing on the Act’s five-year lookback period, which requires that the most recent act occur within five years of the preceding act in the pattern. The court reasoned that if individual acts had to be within their respective limitation periods, the five-year lookback provision would become meaningless. For example, if a pattern relied on three misdemeanor assaults (with a two-year limitation period), all acts would need to occur within two years, rendering the five-year lookback superfluous. The court emphasized that a statute of limitations bars prosecution but does not negate the illegality of conduct.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts both prosecutors and defense attorneys handling pattern charges. Prosecutors can now use time-barred acts as evidence, provided they satisfy the five-year lookback requirement. Defense counsel should focus challenges on the lookback period itself rather than individual limitation periods. The ruling also clarifies that previous language in State v. Kay suggesting time-barred acts cannot support pattern charges has been disavowed.