Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Reinaldo Canton's motion to dismiss a state enticement-of-a-minor charge as untimely. The court held that Utah's criminal statute-of-limitations tolling provision applies when a defendant is physically outside Utah, rejecting Canton's proposed concept of "legal presence." The court also rejected his challenge under the Utah Constitution's Uniform Operation Clause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Utah Code section 76-1-304(1), which tolls the criminal statute of limitations while a defendant is "out of the state," applies based on the defendant's physical absence from Utah notwithstanding his cooperation with authorities and appearances in Utah federal court.
- Whether applying the criminal tolling statute to a defendant physically outside Utah but subject to the state's legal authority violates article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution, the Uniform Operation Clause.
Holdings
- Utah Code section 76-1-304(1) tolls the criminal statute of limitations when a defendant is physically outside Utah. The phrase does not create an exception for a defendant who remains subject to Utah's legal authority, cooperates with authorities, or appears in Utah court proceedings.
- Applying Utah's criminal tolling statute to Canton does not violate article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution. The statute's classification between defendants physically outside Utah and those remaining in Utah is rationally related to legitimate law-enforcement and limitations-period objectives.
Key quotations
“The criminal tolling statute applies to Canton because its text leaves no room for his notion of “legal presence.”” (¶ 3)
“When the phrase “out of the state” is used in its full context, it refers to the physical territory of a state, not its political power or influence.” (¶ 27)
“So the statute’s classification is rational and its application is accordingly constitutional.” (¶ 40)
Factual background
Canton, a New Mexico resident, arranged online to meet an undercover federal agent posing as a fifteen-year-old girl and was arrested in Utah on April 11, 2007. He was released to New Mexico to await trial on federal charges and remained there for most of the following two years, although he returned to Utah for federal proceedings. After the federal charges were dismissed without prejudice in May 2009, Utah charged him with enticement of a minor based on the same 2007 conduct.
Procedural history
Canton was federally charged in Utah in 2007, released to return to New Mexico, and the federal charges were dismissed without prejudice in May 2009. Utah charged him in June 2009 based on the same conduct. The district court held that the criminal statute of limitations was tolled while Canton was physically outside Utah and rejected his constitutional challenge. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed.