Objective Imminence as a Law-Like Mixed Question:
Correctness Review of Pre-Trial Justification Rulings in Utah

1. Introduction

State v. Wilcox, 2025 UT 31, is the Utah Supreme Court’s first opportunity to delineate the appellate standard of review governing district-court dismissals under the 2021 “Pre-Trial Justification Statute” (Utah Code § 76-2-309). The case arose when Coach Lani M. Wilcox was charged with aggravated child abuse and interruption of a communications device after a heated encounter with a sixteen-year-old tennis player, “Gwen.” Wilcox sought a pre-trial justification hearing, asserting self-defense and defense of others. The district court found her conduct justified, dismissed all charges, and the State appealed.

The Utah Supreme Court used the appeal to settle a novel doctrinal question: How should appellate courts review a trial judge’s decision that a defendant’s belief in “imminent danger” was objectively reasonable at the second stage of a pre-trial justification hearing? Employing the three-factor test from State v. Levin, the Court held that objective imminence is a law-like mixed question reviewed for correctness. Applying that standard, the Court reversed the dismissal, ruling that the State had disproved Wilcox’s justification by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Procedural posture: State’s interlocutory appeal from a district-court dismissal following a § 76-2-309 hearing.
• Key holding: Whether a defendant’s belief in the imminent threat element of self-defense/defense-of-others is objectively reasonable constitutes a law-like mixed question. Appellate courts therefore apply de novo (correctness) review rather than clear-error deference.
• Disposition: District court reversed; aggravated child-abuse charge reinstated; mis-demeanor dismissal reversed because § 76-2-309 does not cover class B offenses.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State v. Levin, 2006 UT 50
   • Articulates a three-factor framework for labeling mixed questions as “law-like” or “fact-like.”
   • Wilcox extends Levin by expressly applying the framework to pre-trial justification hearings.
2. State v. Clara, 2024 UT 10
   • Supplies the most recent elaboration of “imminence” and its subjective/objective components in Utah self-defense law.
   • The Court borrowed Clara’s descriptions of imminence (“at any moment,” “impending”) and its emphasis on objectively evaluating reasonableness.
3. Statutory sources
   • Utah Code § 76-2-309 (Pre-Trial Justification Statute) – new two-stage burden-shifting procedure.
   • Utah Code § 76-2-402 – substantive self-defense provisions, including enumerated “imminence” factors.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Identifying the Mixed Question

The “ultimate question” under § 76-2-309—whether the State carried its “clear and convincing” burden to disprove justification—fractures into sub-questions corresponding to the statutory elements of self-defense. The Court isolated the objective imminence element as dispositive, treating it as a mixed question.

(b) Applying Levin’s Three Factors

1. Variety/complexity of facts: Though self-defense scenarios vary, once basic historical facts (distance, timing, prior threats) are found, applying “imminence” is straightforward; this factor is neutral.
2. Reliance on trial-level credibility: Assessing objective reasonableness involves little unique credibility observation; it turns on public norms, favoring appellate control.
3. Policy considerations: De novo review fosters uniformity, balances defendants’ statutory rights with societal interest in prosecuting violence, and prevents premature dismissals.

(c) Standard of Review Adopted

Objective imminence = law-like mixed question → correctness review. Factual findings remain subject to clear-error review.

(d) Application to the Facts

• Gwen slapped Wilcox, then turned away.
• Other players were several yards distant; no immediate target stood within striking range.
• Wilcox’s restraint occurred “almost instantaneously,” making it too early to avert a threat that required Gwen to traverse distance first.
• The State’s evidence (video, distances, timing) “clearly and convincingly” showed no imminent threat to others; hence Wilcox’s belief was objectively unreasonable.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Appellate Review Uniformity: Trial judges’ stage-two rulings under § 76-2-309 are now subject to greater scrutiny, ensuring statewide consistency.
• Burden Allocation Clarified: The decision tightens the State’s evidentiary burden: prosecutors must bring clear and convincing evidence, but appellate courts will independently decide law-like elements.
• Strategic Considerations for Defense Counsel:
  • Stage-one thresholds (prima facie showing) remain low.
  • Yet, because objective elements receive de novo review, counsel must build records anticipating rigorous appellate evaluation (e.g., precise measurements, expert imminence testimony).
• Legislative Significance: Validates the 2021 legislature’s intent that errors can be swiftly corrected without infringing the constitutional jury trial right.
• Broader Doctrine: Utah now joins jurisdictions (e.g., Florida, Georgia) treating the “Stand-Your-Ground” analogue as subject to correctness review, likely influencing Western states adopting similar statutes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mixed Question of Fact and Law

A decision requiring both fact finding (what happened) and legal judgment (what those facts mean under a rule).

Correctness Review (de novo)

The appellate court owes no deference to the trial judge’s conclusion; it decides the issue anew.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

An intermediate burden—more than “preponderance,” less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Think 70-75% certainty.

Prima Facie Showing

The defendant’s initial burden to present enough facts that, if believed, would support a justification defense.

Objective vs. Subjective Imminence

Subjective: Did the defendant actually believe danger was imminent?
Objective: Would a reasonable person in the same situation share that belief?

Pre-Trial Justification Hearing (§ 76-2-309)

Utah procedure allowing judges to decide self-defense claims before trial, potentially dismissing charges outright.

5. Conclusion

State v. Wilcox crystallises a crucial procedural rule in Utah’s evolving self-defense landscape: objective imminence is a law-like mixed question, reviewed for correctness on appeal. By doing so, the Court bolsters uniformity, guides lower courts, and balances defendants’ statutory protections with the community’s interest in prosecuting unlawful violence. Going forward, litigants must meticulously develop factual records on imminence, aware that appellate courts will scrutinise trial judges’ conclusions anew. The decision thus stands as a seminal precedent at the intersection of self-defense doctrine, evidentiary burdens, and appellate oversight.