Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when the state cannot prove a crime occurred in Utah? State v. Blackwing Explained
Summary
Blackwing was convicted of seven counts of rape involving a seventeen-year-old victim. The Court of Appeals reversed one conviction (count 7) because the State failed to prove the offense occurred in Utah, as required for criminal jurisdiction. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of defendant’s motion for new trial because he failed to file an amended notice of appeal after the district court ruled on the motion.
Analysis
In State v. Blackwing, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical issue of criminal jurisdiction and what happens when the state cannot adequately prove that a charged offense occurred within Utah’s borders. The case provides important guidance on jurisdictional requirements and appellate procedure.
Background and Facts
Blackwing was convicted of seven counts of rape involving a seventeen-year-old victim who lived in his home and received martial arts training from him. The charges were divided into two time periods: four counts alleged to have occurred in March 2014, and three counts (counts 5, 6, and 7) alleged to have occurred between April 1 and May 13, 2014. The victim testified that she and Blackwing had intercourse “more than one time” in April, but after a DCFS raid that month, they only had intercourse in Texas, not Utah.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Utah had criminal jurisdiction over counts 5, 6, and 7. Under Utah Code § 76-1-201(1)(a), a person may be prosecuted in Utah if “the offense is committed either wholly or partly within the state.” Although jurisdiction is not technically an element of the crime, the State must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court analyzed whether the phrase “more than one time” could support three separate rape convictions occurring in Utah. While the evidence supported a reasonable inference that at least two instances occurred in Utah before the trip to Texas, the court concluded that inferring a third instance would “rest on mere speculation.” The State failed to prove it was “more likely than not” that three separate acts occurred in Utah, requiring vacation of count 7.
Practice Implications
This case demonstrates that criminal jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, regardless of preservation below. Prosecutors must carefully establish the location of alleged crimes, particularly when victims provide vague testimony about timing and location. The decision also highlights important appellate procedure rules regarding motions for new trial filed before the notice of appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Blackwing
Citation
2020 UT App 72
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170851-CA
Date Decided
May 7, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The State failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that one of three charged rape offenses occurred in Utah, requiring vacation of that conviction for lack of criminal jurisdiction.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including criminal jurisdiction; abuse of discretion for denial of motion for new trial
Practice Tip
When a motion for new trial is pending at the time of filing a notice of appeal, file an amended notice of appeal after the district court rules on the motion to preserve appellate jurisdiction over that issue.
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.