State v. Rushton, 354 P.3d 223

David M. Rushton owned Fooptube, LLC; employees claimed unpaid wages and unreleased retirement withholdings while the company operated (2006–2009).
In 2009 the Utah State Tax Commission charged Rushton with multiple tax offenses; he pleaded guilty in 2010 to two counts (including a pattern-of-unlawful-activity count).
The Tax Commission and prosecutor were notified of employee wage claims during the tax investigation and before Rushton’s tax arraignment.
In 2011 the State filed a separate “wage case” charging fraud, fiduciary theft, theft of services/ failure to pay wages, and a pattern-of-unlawful-activity count related to unpaid wages (~$1.17M) and unremitted retirement withholdings (~$1.2M).
Rushton moved to dismiss the wage case as barred by the single criminal episode/ compulsory-joinder statutes because the wage and tax offenses allegedly arose from the same criminal episode; the district court denied the motion and he entered conditional (Sery) pleas to three counts.
On appeal Rushton argued the wage prosecution was barred; the court reviewed whether the offenses were "closely related in time" and "incident to the attempt or accomplishment of a single criminal objective."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wage charges are barred as arising from the same criminal episode as the earlier tax charges (compulsory joinder / §76-1-401–403)	The State: wage and tax offenses had different victims and objectives, so separate prosecutions were permissible.	Rushton: both prosecutions were incident to a single criminal objective—misappropriating Fooptube funds—so joinder was required and the wage case is barred.	Court affirmed denial of dismissal: offenses were close in time but did not share a single criminal objective; separate prosecutions were proper.

State v. Selzer, 294 P.3d 617 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (narrow view of "single criminal episode" for compulsory joinder).
West Valley City v. Parkinson, 329 P.3d 833 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (separate objectives—eluding police vs. domestic violence—do not form a single criminal objective).
State v. Strader, 902 P.2d 638 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (objective-focused analysis; routine conduct to avoid arrest is distinct from other offenses).
State v. James, 631 P.2d 854 (Utah 1981) (multiple victims can support separate offenses for double jeopardy analysis).
State v. Rasabout, 299 P.3d 625 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishing single-episode joinder issues from multiplicity/double jeopardy).
State v. Mane, 783 P.2d 61 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (double jeopardy context addressing whether acts constitute single offense).
State v. Porter, 705 P.2d 1174 (Utah 1985) (similar activities directed toward a common broad goal do not necessarily form a single criminal act).
State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2011) (criminal plan to obtain money is too broad to be a single criminal objective).
State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (conditional plea preserving right to appeal pre-plea rulings).