H.B. 213 Criminal Proceedings Amendments: transcript

House Judiciary Committee, Feb 2, 2026

1. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:13:17

   Yeah. Now I'm on. Okay. Do you mind if I present from here?

2. Committee chair (presiding)1:13:19

   Not at all. Please proceed.

3. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:13:21

   Okay, perfect. Thank you. So in the United, in the Utah Constitution, it states that, um, defendants in criminal cases have a right to a speedy trial, and we've codified that and that's been existing in law for quite some time. It used to be that we had, uh, time limits on that and, uh, there were some current concerns with that. And so it's been a long time, but those were taken out. What I, what this bill does is it creates a situation where a either a defendant or a victim can file a request with a court, and then it puts some pressure on the court to say that they are entitled to a speedy trial. Uh, either the defendant or the victim are entitled to a speedy trial. The bill gives quite a few, um, exceptions, uh, when speedy trials need not occur. Uh, and, you know, kind of all of those exceptions go to the essence of the parties need due process. It needs to be fair to the victim, it needs to be fair to the defendant. It needs to be fair to the prosecution, and it needs to be fair to the courts. We do recognize that, um, at least in the short term, you know, it might put some burden on the, on the courts or the prosecutor's office to speed up these trials. And so the sta uh, bill specifically says that in those scenarios, uh, they don't need to give a speedy trial. My hope, though, is that in short term, or, you know, it may be a little bit difficult to accommodate that, but once we have a little bit of time under our belts, this bill will not add new trials. It will not increase the number of trials. And instead, um, my hope is that it will actually reduce it. I think there's a lot of cost savings we can find by speeding up this process. On average, most criminal defendants have a court appearance every six weeks. And so the judge has to sit down. Uh, oftentimes judges spend one or two days a week just hearing people come back and back and back saying, Hey, I'm back here six weeks, uh, and here's my status. Okay, I'll see you again in six weeks. By eliminating a lot of that, I think we can save some money in the judicial system, and I think it's good for defendant or for victims. For example, one of the issues victims face is getting restitution, but restitution doesn't come until the case is resolved. And so by speeding up the time that they can get their restitution is good for victims. And so there's a, I think there's a lot of good things that come by doing speedy trials, and that's what this bill hopes to achieve. If you look at the first, the original, um, version of this bill, it's patterned after the Federal court speedy trial. And there's a possibility in the federal courts that a case could be dismissed if speedy trial isn't. Granted, there was some concerns expressed in this, and so we've taken that provision out it, this, it's not our intent that cases be dismissed if there's a speedy trial, but what we want is, uh, the parties to do their best to speed 'em up. And so that's my bill.

4. Committee chair (presiding)1:16:30

   Thank you Representative Abbott. We go to di discussion and clarifying questions on the bill.

5. Unknown speaker1:16:38speaker not certain

   Representative er Yeah. Hi. Um, thank you Chair. Um, I was wondering, as I've been involved in going to different courts, um, some of the stuff I see there is things are moving very quickly and that judges are, you know, in the middle of things as prosecutors and defense are working together. Is is part of that every six weeks just so the judge can really get to know the case and know what's going on? Because it seems like so little time is spent on those, you know, regular occurrences, but I'm, I'm worried if we move this to, you know, the, the speedy trial and take away some of that, that the judge won't be able to keep up on the case. So I'm just wondering if, um, if that's a thing or not, or would be.

6. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:17:39

   So maybe I can answer that. So I think that's a good question. Why is that system set up? Because in civil cases that doesn't happen. They don't make civil parties come in every six weeks and look at the judge in the eye and say, I'm still here. I think my understanding is the reason they do it in criminal cases is just to make sure that the defendant hasn't fled or, you know, something weird like, that's gone on. I don't think there's really any enough time or they never talk about the merits of the case. They never talk about, you know, what's going on in defendant's lives. That's still not, so it's, it's not for that purpose, it's just kind of a check-in. And so if you, if you watch those in court, the judge will say something along the lines of, uh, okay, uh, are you got what's going on? And they'll say, well, we need more time. And then the judge say, alright, I'll see you in six weeks.

7. Committee chair (presiding)1:18:33

   Thank you Representative Abbott. Further discussions or questions to the, to the bill Representative, Gricius representative gracious who is online.

8. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:18:43

   Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are just bombarding you with online questions. Um, I have a couple if that's all right. Um, the first one is based on how I'm reading the substitute, the either the victim or the defendant would have to request that right to speedy trial within 90 days, or they'd have to request it in writing. Is that correct? Correct. And then my second question would be, if the court is unable to accommodate within that time period, what happens? 'cause I know you had said that you removed the automatic dismissal, um, from the bill. So what happens now if that timeframe's not met?

9. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:19:25

   So then the, the court's allowed to extend the timeframe longer. Um, my hope would be that the courts would try and accommodate those and get those resolved as quickly as possible within the constraints faced by, uh, you know, the, the number of cases each judge has and how many cases the prosecutors have and how quickly they can get that done. But

10. Rep. Stephanie Gricius1:19:47

    Okay. But the courts are able to extend then, and we're not automatically dismissing anymore.

11. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:19:51

    Correct. That's what the first sub does. Yeah.

12. Committee chair (presiding)1:19:54

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Gricius. Is there anyone else online? Jonathan? Uh, no. Seeing no further, uh, questions or, or discussion, uh, to the bill?

13. Committee chair (presiding)1:20:06

    We'll go to the public, public for comment. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to speak to the bill? I have 1, 2, 3, 4. Perfect. Come on up. Give you a, we'll give you a minute and a half. Just a reminder just to introduce yourself and any groups that you'd be representing.

14. Marlesse Jones, Victim Services Commission1:20:19

    Thank you. Mad chair Marice Jones, director of the Victim Services Commission. We initially reviewed the first iteration of this legislation and our committee has not met, um, until Friday to look at the substitute. However, I can tell you that the concerns that we had with this bill have been addressed. So we expect, um, a movement towards a more favorable support position. I really wanted to thank Representative Abbott for time. I was able to meet with him and explain the concerns, the significant impact on victims if there was that automatic dismissal. Um, and, and also stress the importance of we understand the need for speedier trial process victims also have that right to speedy trial. And in the 10 years I've prosecuted, um, I've argued it maybe a dozen times and only once had a favorable ruling by a judge. It would always defer to the defendants. And, and there's reasons for that and constitutional reasons for that. Um, but I think this fair and equitable access to having a speedy trial request made, um, helps to remind all that it's not just defendants and their rights at stake. There are a lot of parties at stake and the impact on victims needing to be able to move forward is very important. So we definitely appreciate the effort, uh, with Representative Abbott, and once we've had a chance to look at it more thoroughly, we'll connect back with him if we have any other concerns. Thank you.

15. Committee chair (presiding)1:21:43

    Thank you Marlis. Thank you. Committee members.

16. Michael Drechsel, Assistant State Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts1:21:48

    Uh, my name is Michael Drexel. I'm the Assistant State Court administrator at the administrative office of the courts. Uh, I wanna start by saying we are not opposed to people having speedy trials. It's a really important part of the, the fabric of our criminal justice system that people who are accused of a crime can have their day in court. One of the challenges that we face, as you've heard about a lot this session, is that we're resource constrained. Uh, there were 42,000 felony and class A misdemeanor cases filed in district courts last year, and there are 78 district court judges that will be three more, uh, soon based on legislation you've passed this session, but still less than a hundred district court judges processing 42,000 class a misdemeanor and felony cases. And that doesn't include justice courts where there are almost 60,000 criminal cases filed each year. What it means when we talk about setting things for trial in 90 days or 180 days, is that you'll be stacking dozens upon dozens of cases every single day of the year, most of which will be needless because most of those cases will never go to trial. They'll resolve through a plea bargain, they'll resolve through some sort of dismissal. The arrangement that the defense attorney and the prosecutor come to as it relates to that case will obviate the need for trial in the vast majority. 98% of those cases won't need a trial, but we would be looking at it, uh, right from the get go, 90 days, 180 days since set trial dates unnecessarily, which will clog calendars further and actually slow the process of trying to dial in on the dates that are actually available for the cases that actually need to go. We would love to sit down though and talk about this. This is an important issue and I think there's probably some incremental changes that could be made that would result in gains. I just don't think that House Bill two 13 gets us there. Thanks.

17. Committee chair (presiding)1:23:30

    Thank you, Michael. Thank you.

18. Stewart Young, Office of the Utah Attorney General1:23:34

    My name is Stuart Young, criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of the Utah Attorney General. We appreciate, uh, what, uh, the representative is attempting to do here in terms of, uh, trying to speed up trials and that trial process. We have expressed a number of concerns. Some of those concerns go with, uh, what Mr. Uh, Drexel, uh, just indicated, but additionally, our resource concerns would be such that we anticipate likely at least the doubling of, uh, prosecutors and, uh, investigators needed to initially at least try to get through this backlog. We also, uh, address some other things such as capital cases should probably be prioritized over criminal cases that doesn't clearly fit within a language of this bill. Um, the substitute bill also allows for delays based on the prosecutor's caseload, but it does not explicitly allow for other common good cause delays like witness unavailability or pending lab results. Uh, the bill allows the defendant to object to a victim's speedy trial request for good cause, denies the prosecutor the same, right? That could force a trial before the state is ready leading to avoidable acquittals. Additionally, uh, the current language excludes time when a defendant requests a continuance, but it fails to exclude time when a defendant consents to a state's request. And finally, there is no, uh, this, the earlier bill had a catchall of interest of justice, which mirrors the Federal Speedy trial, right, that has been eliminated from this bill. So we have a number of concerns with this bill. Uh, and we'd have, we'd be, we, we've already engaged, uh, the representative, uh, about this, but we're happy to continue, uh, that discussion. Thank you.

19. Committee chair (presiding)1:25:18

    Thank you, Steve. All right, Steve, the time is yours.

20. Steve Burton, Defense Attorney Association1:25:22

    Yes, Steve Burton representing the Defense Attorney Association. Um, there's kind of an ongoing joke amongst defense attorneys that there is, there's not really a speedy trial right in, uh, defense cases. Uh, I've filed several speedy trial motions in my career, and every time I file one, I kind of know it's a lost cause. Uh, generally if the case has been ongoing for a year or more, you can file a motion, but pretty much everyone knows there's a very small chance that you'll win that. And so it's really concerning to me that we have constitutional provisions that say that defendant has a right to a speedy trial, but we don't really enforce that. There's no real mechanism to do that. Um, obviously the original version of this bill had some strict requirements. This substitute version, uh, seems to be trying to speed along the process, but not having some kind of mandatory dismissal. So from our perspective, it doesn't have the teeth that it would need to. Uh, but we also understand why, because otherwise the judges don't have the flexibility with the resources that they have, um, to not dismiss cases when needed. Uh, this became such an issue that we formed a working group to try to start a pilot project with the third district court to address this specific issue, and we're trying to finalize the details of that pilot project. Um, so my hope would be that we can also, on our end, resolve some of these issues, but then there would be some motivation to address them through passing this bill and having that substitute waiting in the wings.

21. Committee chair (presiding)1:26:57

    Thank, thank you, Steve. Um, Jonathan, is there anyone online to speak to this bill? Uh, nobody. Okay. No one online. Looks like that'll conclude our public comment portion of the meeting. So we'll come back to the Committee for action. Okay. Representative Lisonbee,

22. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:27:22

    Um, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the first substitute of HB two 13.

23. Committee chair (presiding)1:27:27

    That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

24. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:27:30

    Uh, I'll just be really brief. I appreciate the sponsor's work on this. I think the substitute shows that, um, he's, he's come a long way from the original bill that had a lot of physical impact, but also wants to continue to send the message as to we all that, uh, there is a significant right to a fair, uh, fair and speedy trial here in Utah. And so just appreciate the work and hope that he continues.

25. Committee chair (presiding)1:27:54

    Thank you, chair Libe. Um, we'll go to Representative Abbott on the motion to adopt substitute one.

26. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:28:01speaker not certain

    Yes. Thank you. So, um, I would like to adopt substitute one and then, um, yeah. And then Yeah, you want Okay.

27. Committee chair (presiding)1:28:11

    We can come back. Okay. All, uh, this is to the motion to Adopt substitute one HB two 13 representative. Okay. All right. That, uh, we'll go back to the, back to the, uh, sponsor of the motion chair. Libe, I'll

28. Rep. Karianne Lisonbee1:28:30

    Waive. Thank you.

29. Committee chair (presiding)1:28:30

    All right. Um, all in favor of adopting first substitute HB two 13 criminal proceedings amendments. We'll do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. We're back now, uh, we have first substitute house Bill two 13, Representative Thompson.

30. Rep. Jason E. Thompson1:28:54

    Um, yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we move on to the next agenda item that, that motion's in order.

31. Committee chair (presiding)1:28:59

    Would you like to speak to it? Yeah,

32. Rep. Jason E. Thompson1:29:01

    I, um, I, I appreciate all the comments that have been made today, and, um, you know, I, I think probably everyone here, um, wants to make sure that, um, that, that people have a right to a speedy trial and that that's, that that's happening. Um, that concern is we're, we're, we're taking some steps during this session now, um, to correct, um, a bottleneck, especially in, in our, in our district courts. And I am concerned, um, that, uh, that we could be counterproductive with what we're trying to accomplish. Um, my sincere hope is that, that this could go back through, um, the interim, that there could be a working group on this to try and help, um, um, have some rev resolution there.

33. Committee chair (presiding)1:29:50

    Thank you, Representative Thompson. We'll go back to rep, uh, rep Abbott just on that motion, and then we will, uh, rev Abbott on the motion to move to the next agenda item.

34. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:30:00

    Yeah, I would, I'm opposed to that motion. I think, you know, there's been some concerns raised, uh, and I can speak to some of those concerns, but I think it would be better to hold the bill so that I can speak to stakeholders and see if we can resolve those concerns. Or it may be possible to, uh, discuss this during interim and find a resolution that everybody can agree on.

35. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:30:24

    Yeah, I, I'm happy to withdraw my previous motion and substitute that motion with a motion to hold.

36. Committee chair (presiding)1:30:30

    I think you can only, same motion. Okay. Do you want to say motion? Do you wanna substitute your motion?

37. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:30:34

    Yeah, let's substitute my motion that, that the committee pulled the bill withdraw, and then making a That's exactly right. Yeah. Withdraw my previous motion and, and, and now would move a motion to hold.

38. Committee chair (presiding)1:30:44

    Okay. So the motion in front of us is to hold first substitute HB 213 criminal Proceedings amendments. Representative Thompson, would you like to speak to that?

39. Rep. Jason E. Thompson1:30:54

    No, I think I already have and I appreciate the sponsor's willingness to, to continue to work, so thank you.

40. Committee chair (presiding)1:30:58

    We'll go to Representative Abbott on the motion to hold.

41. Rep. Nelson T. Abbott1:31:02

    Yeah, I'll, I will. Um, I think that's appropriate to hold so that I can address some of the concerns that have been raised today. I still fundamentally have a problem with the argument that, you know, I, I have, uh, been contacted by somebody who's had 36 court hearings before they ever Uintah trial. And to say, well, that's a more efficient way, and we're gonna have less court time, less prosecutor time by doing that than a speedy trial. I just do not understand. That does, does not compute in my brain, but I will continue to work with stakeholders to try and figure this out.

42. Committee chair (presiding)1:31:37

    Thank you, Representative Abbott Discussion to the motion to hold. First substitute HB two 13. Seeing none. Is there anyone online? Okay. We'll go ahead and do a VO voice vote. The, uh, the motion is to hold first substitute HB 213 criminal proceedings amendments from Representative Abbott. All in favor of that motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, I rule that passes unanimously.