Must courts make express findings of substantial danger in bail decisions? State v. Stubbs Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about pretrial detention standards in State v. Stubbs, emphasizing the precision required in judicial findings when denying bail or bail modification requests.

Background and Facts: Dylan Stubbs was charged with multiple child sexual abuse offenses in December 2021. Following a detention hearing in January 2022, the district court denied bail. After remaining incarcerated for two and a half years, Stubbs filed a motion to modify his pretrial detention order in August 2024. He argued that the lengthy detention period constituted a material change in circumstances and proffered evidence of his good behavior while incarcerated, compliance with juvenile court conditions, and successful family reunification involving the alleged victim.

Key Legal Issues: The case presented three main issues: (1) whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a bail modification motion, (2) whether the district court found a material change in circumstances, and (3) whether the court made adequate findings regarding substantial danger as required by Utah Code section 77-20-201(1)(c)(i).

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court of appeals confirmed jurisdiction under Utah Code section 77-20-209 and prior precedent in State v. Groce, which allows appeals of both initial and subsequent pretrial detention orders. The court found that the district court did determine a material change in circumstances occurred, despite ambiguous “even if” language in the written order. Most significantly, applying the lowered AL-IN standard due to the State’s failure to substantively brief the issues, the court held that the district court failed to make an adequate finding that Stubbs constituted a “substantial danger” to the community—the statutory standard required for pretrial detention.

Practice Implications: This decision underscores that courts must make specific findings using the statutory “substantial danger” standard, not merely general findings of “danger.” The ruling also demonstrates the importance of substantive briefing—the State’s failure to respond to Stubbs’s arguments resulted in application of the more lenient AL-IN standard. For practitioners handling pretrial detention matters, the case highlights that changed circumstances over extended detention periods require careful judicial analysis of whether the original danger assessment remains valid.