State of Utah v. James and Jeanne Redd
Utah Court of Appeals
954 P.2d 230 (1998)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Police were called to investigate after receiving a report of individuals digging in an area known to contain ruins from an ancient Native American tribe. When an officer arrived, a man who owned land near the site said he had not given anyone permission to dig. Police found James and Jeanne Redd (the Redds) (defendants) at the site, and they said they had the landowner’s permission to dig there. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) got involved and determined that although its land survey listed the land as privately owned, the land actually belonged to the state. BLM also found several human bones scattered around the dig site. They were estimated to be one thousand years old. The bones did not appear to have been placed in the ground in any organized way, and the site was not known to be a cemetery or burial ground. The Redds were charged with abuse or desecration of a dead human body by the intentional and unlawful disinterring of a buried or interred body. After a preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed the charges, ruling that the state’s interpretation of the law was too broad and that such ancient remains could not reasonably be considered human bodies under the terms of the law. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.