The Utah Supreme Court reversed a district court ruling in *State v. Smith*, holding that trial judges must determine statute of limitations issues in criminal cases rather than allowing juries to make such determinations.
The case stems from allegations that defendant Jamison Smith sexually abused victim C.R. between 1988 and 1990. The State filed charges in 2022, more than 30 years after the alleged abuse occurred, raising questions about whether the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations.
Smith moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The central legal question turned on whether C.R.'s communication about the abuse when she was in seventh grade constituted a "report of the offense to law enforcement officials" under Utah Code section 76-1-303.
During the investigation, C.R. told a detective that when she was in seventh grade, she was "pulled out of class" and "asked about the sexual abuse." This statement became crucial to determining when the statute of limitations clock began running.
The Third District Court in Salt Lake County, presided over by Judge Vernice S. Trease, held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the statute of limitations question. However, the trial court found that the facts were disputed and reserved the issue for the jury to decide at trial.
The Utah Supreme Court found this approach legally incorrect. Justice Petersen, writing for a unanimous five-justice court, explained that Utah Code section 76-1-306 requires statute of limitations issues in criminal cases to be determined by "the judge" using a preponderance of the evidence standard, not by a jury.
The distinction is significant both procedurally and substantively. When judges determine statute of limitations questions, they apply the lower preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that governs jury determinations of guilt or innocence. This procedural requirement ensures that threshold legal questions about whether a case can proceed are resolved before trial.
The case represents an interlocutory appeal, meaning Smith appealed the district court's ruling before trial concluded. Interlocutory appeals are relatively rare and typically involve significant legal questions that would benefit from appellate review before final judgment.
The Supreme Court's ruling addresses an important procedural question about how Utah courts should handle statute of limitations defenses in criminal cases. The decision clarifies that trial judges have the responsibility and authority to make these threshold determinations rather than deferring to juries.
For cases involving historical child sexual abuse allegations, the ruling provides important guidance on how courts should approach statute of limitations questions. Many such cases involve events from decades past, making factual determinations about timing and reporting particularly complex.
The case also highlights ongoing challenges in prosecuting historical sexual abuse cases. While many states have extended or eliminated statutes of limitations for such crimes in recognition of delayed reporting patterns, older cases may still face timing challenges under laws that were in effect when the alleged crimes occurred.
The Utah Supreme Court's opinion was authored by Justice Petersen and joined by Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman. The State was represented by Attorney General Derek E. Brown and Assistant Solicitor General Michael Palumbo, while appellant Smith was represented by Ann M. Taliaferro.
The court heard oral arguments on April 9, 2025, and filed its opinion on Oct. 23, 2025. The opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.
With the case remanded to the district court, Judge Trease will now need to determine whether the statute of limitations bars the prosecution. The judge will need to decide whether C.R.'s seventh-grade communication about the abuse constituted an official report to law enforcement that would trigger the statute of limitations period.
The Supreme Court's reversal means the case will return to the trial court with specific instructions about how to proceed with the statute of limitations determination. If the judge finds the statute of limitations has not expired, the case can proceed to trial on the underlying sexual abuse charges.
The ruling reinforces the principle that certain legal questions in criminal cases are for judges to decide rather than juries, even when factual disputes exist. This separation of roles helps ensure that procedural and legal threshold questions are resolved appropriately before cases proceed to trial on their merits.