Does a major Supreme Court decision weeks before trial create exceptional circumstances? State v. Colwell Explained

In State v. Colwell, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule applies when a significant Supreme Court decision is issued weeks before trial. This case provides important guidance for practitioners on timing requirements for raising constitutional challenges based on new precedent.

Background and Facts

Colwell was convicted in 2009 of felony DUI, making him a restricted person under Utah Code section 76-10-503. In July 2020, officers executed a search warrant at his home and found two firearms in his bedroom closet, along with drug paraphernalia and controlled substances. He was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a restricted person, among other charges. The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen on June 23, 2022—seven weeks before Colwell’s August trial. The jury convicted Colwell on the firearm charges.

Key Legal Issues

On appeal, Colwell challenged his firearm convictions as unconstitutional under Bruen‘s modified Second Amendment framework. However, he had not raised this constitutional challenge in the district court. The central issue was whether the exceptional circumstances exception applied to excuse his failure to preserve the argument, specifically whether Bruen‘s timing constituted a rare procedural anomaly.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the framework from State v. Johnson, which requires a rare procedural anomaly to invoke exceptional circumstances. While acknowledging that changes in law can sometimes excuse preservation failures, the court emphasized that the exceptional circumstances doctrine must be “applied sparingly” and reserved for “the most unusual circumstances.” The court found that Bruen was not an obscure decision but was immediately and broadly publicized, particularly among criminal defense attorneys. Seven weeks provided adequate time to formulate and preserve a constitutional challenge, especially given that parties had a pretrial conference a month after Bruen was decided.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners cannot rely on exceptional circumstances when significant legal developments occur weeks before trial. The court’s analysis suggests that widely-publicized Supreme Court decisions, particularly those affecting criminal law, create immediate obligations for counsel to evaluate their impact on pending cases. Practitioners should systematically monitor major appellate decisions and promptly assess their relevance to pending matters, raising constitutional challenges as soon as legally viable arguments become apparent.