Salt Lake City v. Josephson, 2019 UT 6

In September 2014 Randall Josephson repeatedly threatened his neighbor D.C.; one threat on Sept. 7 led to a justice court information and arraignment on Sept. 22, 2014 for threat of violence.
D.C. obtained a stalking injunction served Sept. 20, 2014; Josephson allegedly threatened D.C. again on Sept. 30, 2014.
The City later charged Josephson in district court with stalking (course-of-conduct during September) and a second threat of violence (Sept. 30).
Josephson was convicted in justice court (for the Sept. 7 threat), then tried in district court, where he moved to exclude evidence of the Sept. 7 incident and later moved for directed verdicts arguing double jeopardy/single criminal episode; both motions were denied and he was convicted on both district counts.
On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court (certified from the court of appeals), Josephson argued (1) the district prosecution was barred by the earlier justice court prosecution under the single criminal episode statute/double jeopardy and (2) the district court plainly erred by not merging the stalking and threat convictions at sentencing.
The court held both arguments were not preserved and, under plain error review, found no plain error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Josephson)	Defendant's Argument (State/City)	Held
Whether the district prosecution was barred by prior prosecution under the single criminal episode statute / double jeopardy	Earlier justice court prosecution for Sept. 7 threat bars district prosecution for related September conduct	Preservation lacking for single criminal episode claim; even if unpreserved, record does not show clear error because factual predicate (what prosecutor knew at first arraignment) is absent	Not preserved as single criminal episode claim; no plain error — affirmed
Whether stalking and threat of violence convictions should merge at sentencing	The stalking conviction and the predicate threat are duplicative and should merge	Merger is unresolved; threat statute contains language City argues is anti-merger; preservation absent and law uncertain	Not preserved; law unclear so error would not have been obvious — no plain error; affirmed

State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (sets Utah plain error standard)
State v. Ririe, 345 P.3d 1261 (Utah 2015) (interprets single criminal episode statute scope)
State v. Sosa, 598 P.2d 342 (Utah 1979) (explains procedural requirement to charge offenses arising from single incident)
State v. Smith, 122 P.3d 615 (Utah 2005) (requires clear legislative intent to exempt an offense from statutory merger rules)
State v. Williams, 175 P.3d 1029 (Utah 2007) (discusses codified merger doctrine and lesser-included analysis)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for lesser-included offense analysis)
Baumann v. Kroger Co., 416 P.3d 512 (Utah 2017) (discusses preservation doctrine and its purposes)