State v. Clark
2011 UT 23
| Utah | 2011Background
- Clark was adopted by DCFS in 1995; tsc case involves his younger siblings, T.C. and N.C., who were victims of his sexual abuse.
- In 2007 Clark was convicted on multiple counts of sodomy and sex abuse of a child.
- On Aug 8, 2008 the trial court ordered DCFS to pay the victims’ uninsured treatment costs under a statute authorizing payment by an appropriate state agency if the offender cannot pay.
- Because Clark had been sentenced to prison and had no funds, the court ordered DCFS to pay and required Clark to reimburse DCFS via community service.
- At a restitution review on Feb 20, 2009 DCFS argued the statute only permits payment to the extent funding is provided by the Legislature; the court vacated the order on May 21, 2009, stating no funds were appropriated for this purpose.
- The victims appealed on June 19, 2009, but the appeal challenged the restitution order after a period when the governing right to appeal for crime victims had lapsed and then fluctuated due to changes in the Victims’ Rights Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do victims have a statutory right to appeal the restitution order? | Victims had a right under 77-38-11(2)(b) at issue. | No right to appeal at the time of filing due to repeal; no standing. | No standing; appellate jurisdiction lacking; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lane, 2009 UT 35 (Utah 2009) (Victims' rights and standing to appeal discussed)
- Castle Dale City v. Woolley, 212 P.1 1111 (Utah 1923) (principles on when appellate rights exist)
- Higgs, 656 P.2d 998 (Utah 1982) (retroactivity in procedural amendments to statutes)
- OSI Indus. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 860 P.2d 381 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (procedural-law applicability to pending actions)
- Carlucci v. Utah State Indus. Comm'n, 725 P.2d 1335 (Utah 1986) (substantive rights governed by law at time of occurrence)