State v. Parduhn
2011 UT 55
Utah2011Background
- Three consolidated interlocutory appeals from Salt Lake County criminal cases Parduhn, Jeffs, and Davis involve indigent defendants who privately retained counsel after initially being appointed public defenders; each defendant sought funding for defense resources and expert witnesses but the district court denied, finding no compelling reason, and the appeals question whether funding must be provided despite private representation.
- The Utah Indigent Defense Act (IDA) divides duties between public defense and defense resources, requiring local governments to provide both counsel and investigative/defense resources; amendments in 2001 added the concept of defense resources and an exclusive-source framework for contracted providers.
- The district court held the County had contracted with Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association (LDA) to provide resources to all indigents, thus requiring a compelling reason to appoint noncontracting resources; it denied funding because the defendants failed to show a compelling reason under that framework.
- The defendants argue Burns (holding that funding for necessary defense resources is available even with private counsel) remains good law post-amendments, and that a compelling-reason standard applies only if all indigents are contracted for under the same program.
- The County and LDA contend Burns was effectively overruled by the 2001 amendments and that funding must be channeled through the exclusive-source LDA absent a compelling reason, a position the Court rejects in favor of a broad reading of the plain text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2001 amendments overruled Burns. | Burns remains good law; amendments do not override it. | 2001 amendments were intended to overturn Burns and mandate exclusive-LDA funding. | Burns remains good law. |
| Whether the district court erred by requiring a compelling reason for funding when the County had not contracted to provide resources to all indigents. | Defendants are indigent; resources are necessary; processing should follow statute. | Since LDA is the exclusive source, a compelling reason is needed to use noncontracting resources. | District court erred; funding should be ordered if resources are necessary and indigency is shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (held indigents must have funding for defense resources even with private counsel; distinct from counsel right)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. Supreme Court 1963) (right to counsel as a fundamental constitutional guarantee)
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (right to basic tools of defense for indigents when available for a price to others)
- State v. Gallegos, 171 P.3d 426 (Utah 2007) (context for indigent defense and resources under IDA)