{"id":1488,"date":"2008-06-18T09:10:17","date_gmt":"2008-06-18T14:10:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1488"},"modified":"2019-10-21T16:00:01","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T21:00:01","slug":"state-v-briggs-utah-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2008\/06\/18\/state-v-briggs-utah-2008\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Briggs (Utah 2008)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Briggs, 199 P.3d 935 (Utah 2008)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender and brought several challenges to his conviction, including claims that the state statute violated non-delegation principles, that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction, and that Utah’s SORN violated his procedural Due Process rights. The trial court turned away these challenges, and Appellant sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Utah Supreme Court held affirmed the trial court as to non-delegation and sufficiency of the evidence, but reversed with respect to the procedural Due Process claim. Utah published, in addition to information regarding Appellant’s convictions, information on his “primary and secondary targets.” While prior US Supreme Court precedent precluded the procedural Due Process claim with respect to a hearing generally, the Utah Supreme Court found that publication of this “target” information implied that Appellant was currently<\/i> dangerous and, thus, was entitled to a hearing. The lack of a hearing therefore violated Appellant’s Due Process rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n