Posted: August 30, 2024
Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed October 14, 2024
CJA4-202.02. Records classification. AMEND. The proposed amendments reclassify probation progress/violation reports as protected records, classify “nonpublic restitution records” as sealed records in accordance with Utah Code, and update statutory references to account for the recodification of the Domestic Relations code.
CJA4-202.03. Records access. AMEND. The proposed amendments authorize the Utah Office for Victims of Crime (UVOC) to access sealed “nonpublic restitution records” to ensure the UVOC can fulfill its statutory obligations.
CJA6-104. District court water judges. AMEND. The proposed amendments clarify that the supervising water judge is responsible for reassigning water cases upon the retirement of a water judge.
Our Juvenile Court Team has a few questions related to proposed changes to CJA 4-202.02 and CJA 4-202.03.
Related to CJA 4-202.02 – With non public restitution records being classified as sealed records, would they be sealed upon filing? and if not, would they be sealed in a specific time frame? Should these records be treated as adoption records and expungement records and sealed from our case management systems? Would this prevent other attorneys from seeing the records?
Related to CJA 4-202.03 – Would UOVC only have access to nonpublic restitution records filed by their office, or would they have access to nonpublic restitution records filed by someone else?
Would these updates to the rule result in UOVC not needing to file protective orders on restitution records containing medical or mental health records? Currently those requests ask that Judges and attorneys on a case be able to view the records and that it isn’t further distributed. Would proposed changes limit access by Judges and attorneys?
When UOVC relies on nonpublic restitution records to request restitution in the district court, it must provide that information to the prosecutor and defense counsel. Utah Code § 63M-7-527(5). I understand that sealing the filing does not prevent UOVC from complying with that obligation by separately giving the records to the attorneys. But if the attorneys and the court have access to that information during the restitution proceedings in the district court, they should have access to that information on appeal. On appeal, the only information the attorneys can use to challenge or defend the district court’s order is what is filed on the district court’s docket. Under this rule, the nonpublic restitution records would be sealed and accessible only on motion brought under Rule 4-202.04. See State v. Chadwick, 2023 UT 12. Requiring the prosecutor and defense counsel to file such motions in every restitution appeal involving UOVC is cumbersome. Rather, the rule should explicitly allow it. Perhaps the new language on lines 71-72 of Rule 4-202.03 could read, “(2)(D) Nonpublic restitution records. The Utah Office for Victims of Crime (UOVC), the prosecutor, and counsel for the defendant may access nonpublic restitution records.”