Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's witness retaliation statute require intent to communicate threats to witnesses? State v. Trujillo Explained
Summary
Timothy Trujillo was convicted under Utah’s witness retaliation statute after making threats about neighbors who were witnesses, but the threats were made only to police officers and not intended to reach the witnesses. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute requires intent to communicate threats to the targeted witnesses.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Trujillo clarifies a crucial element of Utah’s witness retaliation statute, holding that the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to communicate threats to the targeted witnesses.
Background and Facts
Timothy Trujillo was arrested for aggravated assault after a confrontation involving an intoxicated minor and neighborhood witnesses. While being arrested, Trujillo told police officers that if he was charged, “my boys will be paying them [the witnesses] a visit.” Crucially, the witnesses were not present when Trujillo made these statements, and the State presented no evidence that Trujillo intended the threats to be relayed to the witnesses. The State charged Trujillo under Utah Code section 76-8-508.3, which criminalizes directing threats against witnesses “as retaliation or retribution.”
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Utah’s witness retaliation statute criminalizes threats made regarding witnesses but not communicated to them, or whether it requires that the threat-maker intended to communicate the threats to the witnesses. The court of appeals had interpreted the statute broadly, focusing on the word “against” to mean threats made in hostility toward witnesses, regardless of communication.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court conducted a detailed statutory interpretation analysis, focusing on the phrase “as retaliation or retribution.” The court explained that this phrase operates as an adverbial modifier requiring that threats function as the actual form of retaliation. Since retaliation and retribution inherently involve acts intended to harm or punish the target, a threat cannot serve as retaliation unless the threat-maker intends it to reach the witness. The court distinguished between making a threat “as retaliation” (which requires intent to communicate) and making a “threat to retaliate” (which would be a future promise).
Practice Implications
This decision significantly narrows the scope of witness retaliation prosecutions in Utah. Prosecutors must now prove not only that defendants made threats regarding witnesses, but also that they intended those threats to reach the witnesses. Defense practitioners should examine whether alleged threats were made with the requisite intent to communicate, particularly in cases involving statements made to third parties rather than directly to witnesses.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Trujillo
Citation
2019 UT 5
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20170615
Date Decided
January 29, 2019
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The witness retaliation statute criminalizes only those threats that the threat-maker intended to be communicated to the witness, as the phrase ‘as retaliation or retribution’ limits the scope to instances where a threat is made as an intended form of retaliation.
Standard of Review
On certiorari, the court reviews decisions of the court of appeals for correctness, giving no deference to conclusions of law
Practice Tip
When prosecuting witness retaliation cases, ensure evidence establishes the defendant’s intent to communicate threats to the witnesses themselves, not just evidence that threats were made about witnesses to third parties.
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.