State v. Canton
308 P.3d 517
| Utah | 2013Background
- Canton, a New Mexico resident, was indicted in federal court in 2007 for coercion and enticement of a 15-year-old; he was released to New Mexico to await trial.
- Over the next two years Canton cooperated with federal authorities and traveled to Utah for federal proceedings, with health issues limiting travel after July 2008.
- In May 2009 the federal charges were dismissed, and in June 2009 Utah charged Canton with enticement of a minor under Utah code §76-4-401.
- Canton moved to dismiss under Utah’s two-year statute of limitations, asserting Utah’s tolling provision for ‘out of the state’ defendants (Utah Code §76-1-304(1)) did not apply due to his alleged ‘legal presence’ in Utah.
- The district court denied the motion, and Canton appealed, arguing the tolling provision is either inapplicable to his ‘legal presence’ or unconstitutional under the Uniform Operation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the tolling statute apply to Canton as ‘out of the state’? | State: Canton was out of Utah physically; tolling applies. | Canton: ‘Out of the state’ should depend on legal presence rather than physical absence. | Yes; tolling applies based on physical absence. |
| Does Canton’s alleged ‘legal presence’ defeat the tolling statute? | State: No; the full phrase refers to physical presence, not legal presence. | Canton: Legal presence would bar tolling. | No; physical presence controls; legal presence does not defeat tolling. |
| Is the tolling statute constitutional under the Uniform Operation Clause? | State: Statutory operation is uniform and rational across classes. | Canton: The law discriminates against out-of-state defendants or improperly extends sovereign reach. | Constitutionality preserved; rational basis applies and no uniformity violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Eagle Mountain City, 248 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (dictionary meaning not controlling; consider statutory context)
- Snyder v. Clune, 390 P.2d 915 (Utah 1964) (civil tolling context; agent presence matters there)
- Lund v. Hall, 938 P.2d 285 (Utah 1997) (civil tolling; nonresident motor vehicle act context)
- Olseth v. Larsen, 158 P.3d 532 (Utah 2007) (limits on ‘legal absence’ concept; physical presence preferred absent a statute)
- Carranza v. United States, 267 P.3d 912 (Utah 2011) (interpretation of minor terms; context matters)
- Angilau v. State, 245 P.3d 745 (Utah 2011) (uniform operation; classifications and scrutiny framework)
- Robinson v. State, 254 P.3d 183 (Utah 2011) (uniform operation and rational basis framework)