Can appellate courts review constitutional challenges that were never decided below? State v. Buttars Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Buttars provides crucial guidance on the timing and procedural requirements for challenging standing orders on constitutional grounds. The case illustrates the importance of obtaining an actual ruling before seeking appellate review.

Background and Facts
David Buttars, a criminal defendant facing retrial for alleged theft and securities fraud, challenged the Third District’s Standing Order requiring virtual jury selection. He argued that the order violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have prospective jurors physically present during voir dire. The State stipulated to in-person jury selection, and the district court granted the request without addressing the constitutional arguments. However, the presiding judge denied approval for the exception under the Standing Order, finding no extraordinary circumstances present.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Utah Supreme Court could exercise interlocutory review jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge when neither the district court nor the presiding judge had ruled on the constitutional question. Buttars argued that the Standing Order’s mandate of virtual jury selection violated his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court dismissed the petition as improvidently granted, emphasizing that on interlocutory appeal, courts review only specific issues presented in the petition. Since neither the district court nor presiding judge adjudicated the constitutional challenge, there was no ruling to review. The Court distinguished State v. Richins, where the extraordinary circumstances determination itself was challenged, providing a reviewable order.

Practice Implications
This decision underscores that constitutional challenges to standing orders must follow proper procedural channels. Practitioners must ensure the district court actually rules on constitutional issues before seeking appellate review. The Court noted that Buttars could re-petition for interlocutory review if he obtains a district court ruling on the Standing Order’s constitutionality, and reminded practitioners of the requirement to notify the Administrative Office of the Courts under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(i)(2) when challenging court rules’ constitutionality.