Utah Supreme Court
When can defendants subpoena child victims at preliminary hearings? State v. Lopez Explained
Summary
Two defendants in separate child sexual abuse cases sought to compel their alleged child victims to testify at preliminary hearings despite the State’s use of reliable hearsay evidence. The courts reached opposite conclusions on motions to quash the victim subpoenas, creating a need for appellate guidance on balancing defendants’ rights against victim protections.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Lopez establishes crucial boundaries for when defendants may compel alleged child victims to testify at preliminary hearings, balancing constitutional rights with victim protections under Utah’s Victims’ Rights Amendment.
Background and Facts
Two consolidated cases presented the court with competing rulings on defendants’ ability to subpoena alleged child victims. In Lopez, a defendant charged with child rape sought to compel his twelve-year-old alleged victim to testify despite the State’s presentation of her reliable hearsay through a Children’s Justice Center interview. The magistrate denied the motion to quash, ruling the defendant had an unfettered right to call witnesses. In Nielsen, involving allegations of sexual abuse of a five-year-old, the magistrate granted the State’s motion to quash the victim subpoena.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed the tension between defendants’ rights under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 7B and the Compulsory Process Clause versus victims’ rights under Utah’s constitutional amendment allowing reliable hearsay at preliminary hearings. The central question was whether defendants possess an absolute right to subpoena alleged victims when the State has already established probable cause through hearsay evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The supreme court held that any defendant authority to subpoena witnesses must be understood within the court’s power to quash unreasonable subpoenas under Rule 14(a)(2). The court established that once the State makes a prima facie showing of probable cause using reliable hearsay, defendants must demonstrate that compelling victim testimony is necessary to present specific evidence material to probable cause and reasonably likely to defeat the State’s showing. The court emphasized that preliminary hearings serve the limited purpose of determining probable cause, not discovery.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly impacts defense strategy in child abuse cases. Defendants can no longer rely on a general right to call witnesses but must articulate specific, material reasons why live victim testimony is necessary. The ruling strengthens victim protections while preserving meaningful defense rights within the preliminary hearing’s constitutional constraints.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Lopez
Citation
2020 UT 61
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
Nos. 20180940, 20180945, 20180952, and 20190272
Date Decided
August 18, 2020
Outcome
Reversed in part and Affirmed in part
Holding
Once the State establishes a prima facie showing of probable cause using a victim’s reliable hearsay, a subpoena compelling the victim to give additional live testimony will survive a motion to quash only if the defendant demonstrates the subpoena is necessary to present specific evidence reasonably likely to defeat the showing of probable cause.
Standard of Review
This opinion establishes a new legal standard rather than applying a traditional standard of review. The court addresses the reasonableness inquiry under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a)(2) for motions to quash subpoenas compelling victim testimony at preliminary hearings.
Practice Tip
When seeking to subpoena an alleged victim at a preliminary hearing, defendants must articulate specific evidence the victim’s testimony would provide that is material to probable cause and reasonably likely to defeat the State’s prima facie showing.
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.