State v. Mohi
Utah Supreme Court
901 P.2d 991 (1995)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Asipeli Mohi, Phillip Lundquist, and Daniel Chaides (defendants) were all under the age of 18 when they allegedly committed specified felony crimes, such as causing death with a firearm or aggravated burglary. The state prosecutor (plaintiff) chose to file criminal charges directly in adult court rather than file civil petitions in juvenile court pursuant to Utah’s direct-file statute (§ 78-3a-25). The minors would otherwise qualify for juvenile jurisdiction. The direct-file statute contained no guidance to inform prosecutorial discretion as to when similarly situated minors should be charged as adults. Without direct filing, juvenile courts had the ability to transfer or “certify” a minor into the adult system, considering 13 statutory factors. Through motion practice, Mohi, Lundquist, and Chaides argued that § 78-3a-25 violated a section of Utah’s constitution entitled “uniform operation of laws” (the uniform-operation provision). Under the uniform-operation provision, laws of a general nature were to operate in a uniform fashion as to different classes of persons. The minors’ motions were denied, and appeals followed. The appeals were consolidated for review by the Utah Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Durham, J.)
Dissent (Russon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.