Utah Supreme Court
Does moving ancient human bones constitute 'removal' under Utah's dead body statute? State v. Redd Explained
Summary
James and Jeanne Redd were charged with violating Utah’s dead human body statute after excavating Anasazi remains from state land. The magistrate dismissed charges under section 76-9-704(1)(a), finding that moving bones a few feet did not constitute ‘removal’ under the statute.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 1996, James and Jeanne Redd were observed excavating in an area containing Anasazi ruins on Utah state land. An archaeological investigation revealed that the Redds had dug in a site that included a kiva, building, and midden area. Human bones were found both in the excavated area’s walls and in discarded dirt piles, indicating the defendants had removed and screened ancient human remains during their dig.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether moving thousand-year-old Anasazi bones constituted “removal” under Utah Code section 76-9-704(1)(a), which prohibits the removal, concealment, failure to report, or destruction of a dead body or any part thereof. The magistrate had dismissed the charges, finding that moving bones “a few feet” did not constitute removal under the statute.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied correctness review to the magistrate’s statutory interpretation. Using dictionary definitions, the court found that “remove” means “to change or shift the location” or “to move by lifting, pushing aside or taking away.” The court concluded that when the Redds took bones from the ground and moved them to dirt piles, they clearly “removed” them within the statute’s plain meaning.
Additionally, the court interpreted the statute to protect both intact dead bodies and any parts thereof, rejecting a narrow reading that would only protect whole bodies. The court emphasized that sound public policy supports protecting partial remains of pioneers, war dead, accident victims, and crime victims.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates Utah courts’ reliance on plain language analysis and dictionary definitions in statutory interpretation. The ruling clarifies that Utah’s dead body protection statute applies broadly to human remains regardless of age, protecting both complete bodies and fragments. For practitioners, the case illustrates the importance of addressing statutory language precisely and considering the policy implications of alternative interpretations when arguing statutory construction issues.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Redd
Citation
1999 UT 108
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 981747
Date Decided
December 28, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The term ‘removes’ in Utah Code section 76-9-704(1)(a) encompasses moving human bones from their original location, and the statute protects both intact dead bodies and any parts thereof.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging statutory interpretation at the trial level, be prepared to address dictionary definitions of key terms, as Utah courts frequently rely on plain language analysis.
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.