State v. Ririe, 2015 UT 37

The Court ruled on the requirements of claim preclusion for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode under the Utah Code.

State v. Ririe, 2015 UT 37

           

            Bobbie Jo Nadine Ririe was issues citations for an open container offense, and a drunk driving offense. The open container offense went to a justice court, and the defendant paid the fine online. This resulted in a “conviction” which barred any subsequent prosecution on the same offense.

           

           The defendant attempted to use Utah Code section 76-1-403 which adopts a principle of claim preclusion for certain offenses arising out of a “single criminal episode” and the subsequent prosecution is for an offense that was or should have been tried under Subsection 76-1-402(2).”

         

           The statute requires that there be an information made about the crime and that a prosecutor be involved. In State v. Prion the Court determined that the offenses are “known to the prosecuting attorney at the time the defendant is arraigned on the first information or indictment.” See State v. Prion, 2012 UT 15, ¶ 30, 274, P.3d 919.

The Court here ruled that the statute does not apply to this case because there was no “information or indictment” on the first offense, and accordingly there was not a “prosecuting attorney” involved. For the first offense the defendant pleaded guilty by using the online system to pay the fine, essentially admitting guilt. Because it was dealt with before an information was filed and before a prosecutor was involved, there is no claim preclusion under this statute.