Utah Supreme Court
What burden must a petitioner meet to obtain appointment of a special prosecutor in Utah? In re Request for Appointment of Special Prosecutor by Eric Hunting Explained
Summary
Eric Hunting requested appointment of a special prosecutor under Article VIII, Section 16 of the Utah Constitution, challenging the Vernal City prosecutor’s alleged failure to pursue statutory violations by the Vernal City Chief of Police. The Court established a briefing schedule to allow Hunting to demonstrate that the prosecutor’s failure was outside legitimate prosecutorial discretion.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court recently clarified the procedural requirements for obtaining appointment of a special prosecutor in In re Request for Appointment of Special Prosecutor by Eric Hunting. This order establishes important precedent regarding the burden of proof required when challenging prosecutorial decisions.
Background and Facts
Eric Hunting petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for appointment of a prosecutor pro tempore under Article VIII, Section 16 of the Utah Constitution. Hunting alleged that the Vernal City prosecutor failed to pursue certain statutory violations by the Vernal City Chief of Police. The petition challenged the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute as improper.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was determining what burden petitioners must meet when requesting appointment of a special prosecutor based on allegations of prosecutorial inaction. The Court needed to establish standards for distinguishing between legitimate prosecutorial discretion and improper failure to prosecute.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court held that petitioners requesting appointment of a special prosecutor bear the burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor’s failure or refusal to prosecute constitutes action outside the legitimate scope of prosecutorial discretion. The Court cited State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991 (Utah 1995), as establishing this standard. Rather than ruling immediately, the Court established a briefing schedule allowing all parties to present their positions.
Practice Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners seeking special prosecutor appointments. The Mohi standard requires substantial evidence that prosecutorial inaction exceeds discretionary bounds. Practitioners must prepare comprehensive documentation showing clear prosecutorial error or misconduct, not merely disagreement with prosecutorial judgment. The Court’s approach emphasizes thorough briefing over oral argument in these proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Request for Appointment of Special Prosecutor by Eric Hunting
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 960558
Date Decided
January 8, 1997
Outcome
Pending
Holding
A party requesting appointment of a special prosecutor must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s failure to prosecute is outside the legitimate scope of prosecutorial discretion.
Standard of Review
Not specified in this order
Practice Tip
When seeking appointment of a special prosecutor, prepare comprehensive documentation showing the prosecutor’s action falls outside legitimate discretionary bounds, citing State v. Mohi’s standard.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.