When does a victim's family tie to a judge require disqualification in Utah? State v. Hararah Explained

Background and facts

Houston Raefat Hararah was convicted of two counts of forcible sexual abuse following a jury trial in Davis County. Shortly before trial, Hararah filed a motion seeking disqualification of not only the assigned trial judge but of every district court judge in Davis County. The sole basis for the motion was a recent discovery that the victim was the niece of a different Davis County district court judge. Hararah’s supporting affidavit expressly acknowledged that there was “no reason to believe” any other judge had actual knowledge of the familial connection and that no disclosure between judges was known to have occurred. The presiding judge denied the motion as speculative. After a jury convicted Hararah on two counts, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent one-to-fifteen-year prison terms, rejecting a request for probation. Hararah appealed both rulings.

Key legal issues

Two issues were presented. First, whether the presiding judge abused his discretion in denying the motion to disqualify under rule 29 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, where the only connecting fact was a victim’s extended-family relationship to a non-assigned judge. Second, whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing prison rather than probation, allegedly by failing to adequately consider mitigating evidence.

Court’s analysis and holding

On disqualification, the court applied the reasonable-person test: whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would believe the assigned judge’s impartiality could be questioned. See West Jordan City v. Goodman, 2006 UT 27, ¶ 22. The court emphasized that an appearance of bias must be grounded in fact rather than mere conjecture. Because Hararah’s motion conceded no actual knowledge or communication between the two judges — and the record later confirmed the assigned judge worked in a different courthouse and rarely interacted with the victim’s uncle — the motion rested entirely on speculation. The court distinguished the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct’s provision addressing judges assigned to cases involving their own close family members, finding it inapplicable where the familially connected judge was uninvolved.

On sentencing, the court reiterated that trial courts have wide latitude and that disagreement with how mitigating factors are weighed does not establish an abuse of discretion. The trial court had expressly acknowledged Hararah’s volunteer work, family support letters, and in-custody self-improvement efforts, but found the seriousness of the crimes, the impact on the victim, and the PSR’s documentation of prior failed probation terms and assaultive behavior to outweigh those considerations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the concurrent prison sentences.

Practice implications

Practitioners must understand that a disqualification motion premised solely on indirect judicial relationships will fail unless supported by concrete, non-speculative facts demonstrating actual knowledge, communication, or a meaningful personal relationship between the assigned judge and the connected judge. Conclusory assertions about courthouse collegiality are insufficient. On sentencing, Hararah reinforces that appellate courts will not reweigh mitigating factors for a defendant — counsel must demonstrate that the sentencing court entirely failed to consider a relevant factor, not merely that it weighed factors differently than the defense preferred.