Can failure to respond doom an appellee's case on appeal? State v. Coleman Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently demonstrated the peril that awaits appellees who fail to adequately respond to appellant arguments in State v. Coleman, 2025 UTApp 33. The case serves as a stark reminder that appellate advocacy requires comprehensive briefing from both parties.

Background and Facts

Corey Coleman worked as a building official for Vernal City from 2011 to 2017. During his final two weeks of employment, witnesses testified that Coleman was frequently making copies at the office copy machine. After Coleman’s employment ended, he turned over photographs of City records during litigation related to an employment discrimination claim. The State charged Coleman under Utah Code § 76-8-413, “Stealing, destroying or mutilating public records by one not a custodian,” and a jury convicted him.

Key Legal Issues

Coleman filed a motion to arrest judgment, arguing that the statute only criminalizes conduct involving original records, not copies or photographs of records. The central issue was whether Utah Code § 76-8-413 applies to copies of public records or only to original documents.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied a lowered standard of review because the State failed to respond to Coleman’s statutory interpretation arguments. Under this standard, the appellant need only establish “a prima facie showing of a plausible basis for reversal.” Coleman argued that the statute’s plain language—criminalizing “stealing, willfully destroying, mutilating, defacing, altering, falsifying, removing, or secreting”—applies only to original records and does not mention copies. Using the noscitur a sociis canon of interpretation, Coleman contended these terms describe conduct that affects the integrity of original records.

The court reversed without deciding the merits, explicitly noting this was “a non-merits decision that is not intended to have any precedential value.”

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the critical importance of comprehensive appellate briefing. When appellees fail to respond to appellant arguments, they “do so at their own peril.” The court will not “create arguments on behalf of” the non-responsive party. Practitioners must thoroughly address all arguments raised by opposing counsel to avoid the lowered standard that favors reversal.