Layton City v. Stevenson, 337 P.3d 242

Stevenson entered a plea in abeyance for Layton City patronizing a prostitute with a no-violations-of-law condition.
Six months later Stevenson faced a Sunset City sexual solicitation charge and entered a diversion agreement (not a conviction).
Layton City later filed an order to show cause alleging violation of the no-violations condition; an evidentiary hearing was held.
Evidence at the hearing included landlord Ben’s testimony, officer Jameson’s testimony, and Stevenson’s denial.
The district court initially held that a conviction was required to prove a violation; the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding no conviction needed.
Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether a conviction is required to prove a violation, and (2) what standard of proof applies; the Court remanded for a determination under the appropriate standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
No-violations-of-law condition requires conviction to prove violation	Stevenson argued conviction required	Layton City argued misconduct suffices	Conviction not required to prove violation
Standard of proof for proving violation of a plea in abeyance condition	Beyond a reasonable doubt should apply	Preponderance of the evidence should apply	Preponderance of the evidence applies

Layton City v. Stevenson, 298 P.3d 1267 (Utah App. 2013) (prosecution need not prove a conviction for no-violation condition; remand guidance on proof standard)
State v. Bonza, 150 P.2d 970 (Utah 1944) (probation-style reasoning when evaluating compliance with law conditions)
State v. James, 819 P.2d 781 (Utah 1991) (presumption of innocence not applicable to stand-alone enforcement actions)
State v. Green, 757 P.2d 462 (Utah 1988) (probation/conditions—context for burden of proof)
State v. Hodges, 798 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (probation violation standard of proof)