Can police statements drafted by others be admitted at Utah preliminary hearings? State v. Clayton Explained

In State v. Clayton, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether written statements from police officers can be admitted as reliable hearsay at preliminary hearings under rule 1102(b)(8), even when the statements were not personally written by the officers themselves.

Background and Facts

Clayton was charged with felony DUI and misdemeanor drug counts after police found him unconscious in his vehicle. At his preliminary hearing, the State presented only documentary evidence, including written statements from two officers who did not testify live. The statements were captioned “WITNESS STATEMENT FOR USE AT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION” and included detailed descriptions of the officers’ involvement in Clayton’s arrest. While the statements were typed, the officers initialed each paragraph and signed the documents, which included notifications that false statements were punishable as misdemeanors.

Key Legal Issues

Clayton argued that the statements were inadmissible under rule 1102(b)(8) because they were not “written by the declarants themselves” or “transcribed verbatim.” He contended that without these statements, the State lacked sufficient evidence to support the bindover. The State countered that the rule only requires statements to be written and made pursuant to notification of potential punishment for false statements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied principles of statutory interpretation to rule 1102(b)(8), focusing on the plain meaning of the text. The court found that the phrase “statement of a declarant” requires only that the statement belong to the declarant, not that it be personally prepared by them. The rule’s disjunctive language—”written, recorded, or transcribed verbatim”—creates three independent pathways for admissibility. The court rejected Clayton’s argument that allowing third-party-drafted statements would render the “transcribed verbatim” language superfluous, explaining that this option serves situations where oral statements are transcribed for presentation in court.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for prosecutors preparing preliminary hearing evidence. The ruling confirms that properly executed written statements satisfy rule 1102(b)(8) requirements regardless of who drafts them, as long as declarants adopt the content through signatures and receive proper notification about penalties for false statements. However, practitioners should note that the legislature amended rule 1102 in 2023 to prohibit prosecutors from drafting statements for declarants, though this change does not apply retroactively to cases like Clayton’s.