State v. Parduhn, 2011 UT 57

Three consolidated interlocutory-appeal cases arising from indigent defendants Parduhn, Jeffs, and Davis in Salt Lake County involve funding requests for defense resources after they retained private counsel.
The district court denied funding determinations, holding that the defendants failed to show a compelling reason for the requested resources.
The core question is whether amendments to the Utah Indigent Defense Act (IDA) supersede Burns, which held funding must be provided even if private counsel is used, and whether a compelling-reason showing is required when no county contract covers all indigent defendants.
The court concludes that Burns remains good law and that funding must be provided for necessary defense resources regardless of private representation, unless the county has contracted to provide resources to all indigents and a compelling reason is shown to use non-contracted resources.
The County concedes no contract covers all indigents, so the district court erred by requiring a compelling reason and must fund the defense resources requested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the IDA amendments override Burns on funding indigents with private counsel?	Parduhn argues amendments overruled Burns.	County argues amendments overrule Burns and limit funding.	Burns remains good law; amendments do not overrule Burns.
Is a compelling-reason showing required when the county has not contracted to provide defense resources to all indigents?	Defendants contend no compelling reason is needed unless contracted; district court erred.	County asserts need for compelling reason even without universal contract.	District court erred; no compulsion to show compelling reason where county has not contracted for all indigents.
Does the plain language of the Act require local governments to provide funding for defense resources to indigents even when represented by private counsel?	Yes; resources must be provided independently of public counsel.	No; funding should be limited by contracting arrangements (exclusive-source).	Yes; local governments must fund necessary defense resources for indigents even if privately represented.

State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56 (Utah Supreme Court, 2000) (holding that indigents are entitled to defense resources separate from public counsel; Burns remains good law)
Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1971) (indigent must be provided basic tools of defense)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963) (right to counsel as a fundamental due process right)