State v. Hattrich, 317 P.3d 433

Hattrich appealed after pleading guilty to three counts of sodomy on a child following a multi-count information involving five victims from 1994–1999.
The State amended the information four times; at preliminary hearing on 6/21/2011 the magistrate bound over for trial on all counts except count 21 (third-degree sexual abuse of a child), which was dismissed.
Pre-trial motions included a denied change of venue and a denied motion to sever most counts; severance was granted only as to counts 26 and 27 (dealing in material harmful to a minor).
Defendant eventually entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to three counts of sodomy on a child in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, with sentences of 15 years to life per count to run concurrently.
On appeal, Defendant challenged venue, severance, bindover, multiplicity/dismissal, and a warrantless arrest issue; the court set forth standards of review for each.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Change of venue denial	Hattrich argues no fair impartial jury was possible in Sevier County	Hattrich contends venue should have been changed due to community prejudice	No abuse of discretion; totality of circumstances favored denial
Severance denial	Joinder prejudiced the defendant	Joinder would allow prejudice from multiple charges	No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated prejudice from joinder
Bindover denial	Probable cause supported bindover for all counts	Bindover standard misapplied; rights violated	Magistrate applied correct probable cause standard; bindover upheld
Multiplicity and notice—Rule 4(d) due process	Amendments created new offenses and prejudiced defense	Notice provided was adequate; amendments did not prejudice substantial rights	Amendments proper under rule 4(d); no substantial prejudice; notice adequate
Due process and notice under rule 4/due process—notice sufficiency	Notice insufficient due to moving targets in dates/times	Notice adequate under Taylor and Nelson-Waggoner; not prejudicial	Notice sufficient; no due process violation

State v. James, 767 P.2d 549 (Utah 1989) (abuse of discretion standard for change of venue appeal)
State v. Widdison, 28 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2001) (totality of the circumstances for venue challenges on interlocutory appeal)
State v. Timmerman, 218 P.3d 590 (Utah 2009) (Confrontation rights not applicable to preliminary hearings; bindover standard)
State v. Salazar, 114 P.3d 1170 (Utah App. 2005) (motions to dismiss; correctness review of multiplicity issues)
State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 94 P.3d 186 (Utah 2004) (Due process notice sufficiency; elements of notice)
State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1991) (notice sources for charging information (bill of particulars, section 77-14-1))
State v. Taylor, 116 P.3d 360 (Utah 2005) (due process requires sufficiently precise notification of the offense)
State v. Morrison, 31 P.3d 547 (Utah 2001) (multiplicity: each act may be separate offense under certain statutes)
Tillman v. Cook, 855 P.2d 211 (Utah 1993) (amendments may be allowed if no prejudice to substantial rights)
State v. Bush, 47 P.3d 69 (Utah App. 2001) (Rule 4(d) amendments and prejudice)
State v. Holt, 2004 UT App 213U (Utah App. 2004) (amendment at end of trial; prejudice not shown)
State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1987) (alibi defense and elements proof; date precision not required)