District Courts Have Discretion to Rehear Pretrial Motions

State v. Bozung, 2011 UT 3 (Utah Supreme Court, January 7, 2011).

Bozung prevailed on his motion to suppress a confession and related evidence when the state failed to show that he was adequately informed of his Miranda rights.  The state moved the trial court to rehear the suppression issue.  The trial court denied the motion finding that it did not have discretion to rehear the matter.  The State Appealed. 

The Court of Appeals found that trial courts have discretion as to whether to rehear pretrial motions and that it should use that discretion liberally to allow the whole case to be presented.  Determinations regarding rehearings must be made in the light of the totality of circumstances.

Rule 24 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure apples only to post-trial motions.  In considering whether to rehear a pretrial motion the court should consider the following factors: 1) the reason the proposed evidence was not produced at the first hearing; 2) whether an omission was deliberate or accidental, grossly negligent or merely careless; 3) whether the proposed evidence was lawfully obtained; 4) whether the proposed evidence will have a substantial effect on the court’s ruling; 5) whether permitting the evidence will unfairly prejudice the party against whom it is being offered; 6) experience of the prosecutor; nature of the case; 7) timeliness of the motion; and 8) the court’s “strong interest in controlling its docket and avoiding piecemeal litigation.”  Reversed and Remanded to consider the factors as to whether the suppression issue should be reheard.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Bozung010711.pdf