Must Utah courts examine preliminary hearing testimony case-by-case for similar motive? State v. Goins Explained

In State v. Goins, the Utah Supreme Court fundamentally changed how courts evaluate the admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony from unavailable witnesses, establishing that trial courts must conduct case-by-case analysis rather than apply a blanket rule.

Background and Facts
DeSean Goins was charged with mayhem and aggravated assault after confronting Gabriel Estrada about a stolen phone and later stabbing Jacob Omar. Both Estrada and Omar testified at the preliminary hearing, where Goins’s counsel cross-examined Estrada. When Estrada failed to appear at trial despite the prosecution’s efforts to locate him, the district court admitted his preliminary hearing testimony under Utah Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). The jury convicted Goins of aggravated assault for stabbing Omar and a misdemeanor for threatening Estrada.

Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Rule 804(b)(1)’s requirement that a party have “an opportunity and similar motive to develop” testimony at a prior proceeding was satisfied. Goins argued that the constitutionally limited purpose of preliminary hearings—establishing probable cause—gave his counsel a different motive than she would have had at trial. The State relied on State v. Brooks, which held that defense counsel always has the same motive at preliminary hearings and trials.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court disavowed State v. Brooks, finding that the 1994 constitutional amendment to Article I, Section 12 undermined Brooks’s foundational premise. The amendment limited preliminary hearings to determining probable cause, meaning defense counsel often lacks incentive to thoroughly cross-examine on credibility or develop affirmative defenses. The court rejected both a per se rule allowing all preliminary hearing testimony and a blanket prohibition, instead requiring case-by-case analysis to determine whether counsel had a similar motive.

Practice Implications
This decision requires attorneys to carefully analyze the specific circumstances of each preliminary hearing when seeking to admit or exclude such testimony. Courts must examine whether defense counsel’s actual motive and opportunity at the preliminary hearing were similar to what they would have been at trial. The ruling affirmed Goins’s felony conviction because Estrada’s testimony was unrelated to the Omar assault, but reversed his misdemeanor conviction where Estrada’s testimony was the primary evidence.