State v. Parduhn
2011 UT 56
Utah2011Background
- Three consolidated interlocutory appeals arise from Parduhn, Jeffs, and Davis in Salt Lake County alleging indigent defendants are entitled to funding for defense resources even with private counsel.
- Each defendant initially had public defender representation but subsequently retained private counsel; the LDA withdrew in each case.
- Defendants moved for funding to hire expert witnesses/investigators; the district court denied funding, requiring a compelling reason.
- The Utah Indigent Defense Act (IDA) is interpreted to require local governments to fund defense resources independent of whether private or public counsel represents the indigent.
- The district court determined that the County contracted to provide resources through LDA and thus required a compelling reason to appoint noncontracting resources; the court denied funding.
- Court holds amendments to the IDA did not overrule Burns and a compelling reason is not required where the county has not contracted to provide defense resources to all indigents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2001 IDA amendments overrule Burns? | Amendments were designed to overrule Burns and require bundled resources. | Burns remains good law; amendments do not overrule Burns. | Amendments did not overrule Burns; Burns remains good law. |
| Must a defendant show a compelling reason to receive funding for defense resources when private counsel is used? | District court correctly required compelling reason due to exclusive-source contracting. | No compelling reason required if the county has not contracted to provide resources to all indigents. | District court erred; compelling reason is not required when county has not contracted to provide resources to all indigents. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56 (Utah) (holding that indigent defendants are entitled to funding for defense resources even when privately represented)
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (equal protection requiring indigents be provided basic tools for defense when available for others)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. Supreme Court 1963) (right to counsel for indigent defendants applied to the states via due process)