What happens when a trial court fails to resolve presentence investigation report objections? State v. Kohl Explained

In State v. Kohl, the Utah Supreme Court addressed multiple appellate issues arising from an aggravated burglary case, but the most significant holding involved the trial court’s failure to comply with statutory requirements for resolving disputed presentence investigation reports.

Background and Facts

Jason Kohl and several companions invaded a Pleasant Grove home occupied by Kornya French and Justin Lee. French called 911 and provided descriptions of the intruders and their vehicles. Officers quickly located and stopped the vehicles, discovering multiple weapons including an SKS assault rifle and a twelve-gauge shotgun. Kohl was convicted of aggravated burglary and possession of a weapon by a restricted person. The trial court applied the group crime penalty enhancement statute and sentenced Kohl to an indeterminate term of five years to life plus an additional nine years.

Key Legal Issues

Kohl raised seven issues on appeal, including challenges to the motion to suppress, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of the group crime penalty enhancement. Most significantly, he argued the trial court failed to properly resolve his objections to the presentence investigation report under Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-1(6)(a).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed most rulings, finding the vehicle stops were supported by reasonable suspicion based on the 911 call and subsequent corroboration. However, the court agreed that the trial court failed to comply with its statutory duty regarding the presentence report. Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-1(6)(a) requires trial courts to “make a determination of relevance and accuracy on the record” when disputed information cannot be resolved. The court must consider objections, make specific findings about accuracy, and determine relevance to sentencing—not merely make general statements.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of precise compliance with presentence investigation procedures. Trial courts must address each specific objection with detailed findings rather than broad generalizations. For appellate practitioners, this case provides clear guidance on what constitutes adequate compliance with § 77-18-1(6)(a) and serves as a reminder to preserve objections to presentence reports for potential appellate review.