State v. Folsom, 345 P.3d 1161

Daniel J. Folsom was charged by information with murder on December 19, 2011; he was declared indigent and initially appointed public counsel, then retained private counsel the next day.
Folsom filed a motion on May 3, 2012 requesting government-funded defense resources (investigator, forensic experts, DNA testing, transcripts, neurosurgeon, etc.).
The Utah Legislature amended the Indigent Defense Act (IDA) effective May 8, 2012; the amendments generally bar provision of state-funded defense resources to defendants represented by private counsel (with limited exceptions).
The district court treated the 2012 amendments as procedural and applied them retroactively, denying Folsom’s motion for public resources.
Folsom appealed interlocutorily to the Utah Supreme Court, which reviewed de novo whether the amended IDA applied to his May 3, 2012 motion.
The Supreme Court held that the relevant “event” is the defendant’s assertion of a matured right to government-funded defense resources; because Folsom’s request was made before the amendments’ effective date, the pre-amendment law governed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Folsom)	Held
Whether the 2012 IDA amendments apply to motions for public defense resources filed before the amendments’ effective date	The IDA’s terms for providing resources are procedural and thus apply retroactively; alternatively, amendments merely clarify prior law	The IDA creates a substantive, vested right to receive state-funded defense resources separate from counsel; retroactive application would impair vested rights	Held for Folsom: the controlling event is the matured assertion of the right (filing the motion); because Folsom’s motion was filed before the amendments’ effective date, the pre-amendment law applies

State v. Parduhn, 283 P.3d 488 (Utah 2011) (prior construction of the IDA allowing public provision of defense resources separate from counsel)
State v. Clark, 251 P.3d 829 (Utah 2011) (apply the law in effect at the time of the event regulated; substance/procedure line identifies the event)
State v. Johnson, 290 P.3d 21 (Utah 2012) (analysis of substantive versus procedural statutes and retroactivity)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (law is retroactive if it attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (states must provide counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases)
Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1971) (indigent defendant’s Sixth Amendment right includes basic tools of an adequate defense)
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1972) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches at or after initiation of adversary judicial proceedings)
Harvey v. Cedar Hills City, 227 P.3d 256 (Utah 2010) (defining procedural rules as the machinery by which substantive law is made effective)