What constitutes an 'interred' body under Utah's desecration statute? State v. Redd Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals faced a challenging question in State v. Redd: whether ancient human remains scattered at an archaeological site constitute “interred” bodies under Utah’s desecration statute. The court’s analysis provides important guidance on the elements prosecutors must prove in such cases.

Background and Facts

James and Jeanne Redd were charged with abuse or desecration of dead human bodies under Utah Code section 76-9-704(1)(b) after disturbing human remains at an Anasazi archaeological site. A witness observed them digging at the site, which was later determined to be on state land. Investigators found thirteen to fifteen human bones that appeared to have been recently screened and discarded. The bones were approximately one thousand years old and found in a midden area near ancient dwelling ruins.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the ancient bones were “buried or otherwise interred” as required by the statute. The magistrate wrestled with whether thousand-year-old remains scattered at archaeological sites should be treated as “dead bodies” under criminal law or as “remains” under archaeological protection statutes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied statutory construction principles, consulting dictionary definitions since the statute did not define “inter.” The court determined that “inter” means “to deposit a dead body in the earth or in a grave or tomb,” requiring intentional placement of a body in a location designated for its repose. The court emphasized that finding bones underground alone does not establish they were intentionally buried. Without evidence of burial practices, grave markers, or intentional deposit, the State failed to prove the essential element of interment.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear requirements for prosecuting desecration cases involving ancient remains. Prosecutors must present evidence beyond mere underground location—such as expert testimony on burial practices, evidence of intentional placement, or indicators of designated burial sites. The ruling protects property owners from felony liability for inadvertently disturbing scattered ancient remains while preserving criminal penalties for true grave desecration.