State v. Black, 355 P.3d 981

Terry Black was charged with aggravated murder, child kidnapping, and child rape; Judge Kouris was assigned to the case.
Judge Kouris scheduled a preliminary hearing; defense asked for continuances and then filed a competency-to-stand-trial petition shortly before the hearing.
At a hearing on the sufficiency of the competency petition, Judge Kouris (having earlier presided over preliminary matters) questioned the timing of defense counsel’s competency concerns and then granted a competency evaluation, staying other proceedings.
Black moved to transfer adjudication of competency (arguing a judge who acted as magistrate cannot later act as judge) and separately moved to disqualify Judge Kouris for apparent bias; both motions were denied by the Third District presiding judge and associate presiding judge, respectively.
On interlocutory appeal, the disqualification issue became moot after Judge Kouris was reassigned; the court nonetheless reviewed whether a district judge may act as both magistrate and judge in the same case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Kouris should be disqualified for apparent bias based on his hearing comments	Black: judge’s tone/comments created appearance of bias requiring disqualification	State: judge’s reassignment rendered disqualification request moot; comments not disqualifying	Moot—issue not decided because judge was reassigned making requested relief meaningless
Whether a district court judge who sat as a magistrate may later adjudicate district-court-only matters (e.g., competency) in the same case	Black: once a judge acts as magistrate, he surrenders judicial-role authority and cannot adjudicate district-court matters in same case	State: a judge may switch roles; sitting as magistrate does not divest district-court authority	Held: A district court judge may act as both magistrate and judge in the same criminal case; may adjudicate competency after presiding as magistrate

Van Dam v. Morris, 571 P.2d 1325 (Utah 1977) (discusses statutory distinction between magistrate functions and judicial office)
State v. Humphrey, 823 P.2d 464 (Utah 1991) (reiterates that magistrate powers differ from judicial-office powers)
State v. Jaeger, 886 P.2d 53 (Utah 1994) (recognizes a judge may switch between magistrate and judicial roles in same case)
State v. Smith, 344 P.3d 573 (Utah 2014) (affirms that district court does not lose jurisdiction when moving between capacities)
Utah Transit Auth. v. Local 382 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, 289 P.3d 582 (Utah 2012) (explains mootness doctrine and exceptions)
Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption of L.O.), 282 P.3d 977 (Utah 2012) (discusses justiciability and mootness)
State v. Norris, 152 P.3d 293 (Utah 2007) (jurisdictional questions reviewed for correctness)