Utah’s General Saving Statute Protects Ongoing Criminal Prosecutions from Abatement upon Statutory Repeal
Introduction
State v. Cooke, 2025 UT 6, presented the Utah Supreme Court with the pivotal question whether a criminal prosecution, once lawfully commenced, survives the repeal of the underlying statutory offense. The defendant, Monte K. Cooke, was charged after a fatal 2016 semi‐truck collision with second‐degree felony counts for negligently operating a vehicle while possessing methamphetamine under Utah Code § 58-37-8(2)(g). In 2022 the Legislature repealed and re-codified that offense under Title 76 with altered elements and penalties. Cooke moved to dismiss, arguing that the repeal abated his pending charges. The District Court initially granted dismissal, then reversed, invoking Utah’s general saving statute, § 68-3-5. The State appealed interlocutorily; the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court to resolve a pure question of statutory interpretation.
Summary of the Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the District Court. It held:
- Under Utah Code § 68-3-5 (“general saving statute”), “the repeal of a statute does not … affect … any action or proceeding commenced under or by virtue of the statute repealed.”
- The plain, unqualified terms “action” and “proceeding” encompass criminal prosecutions as well as civil suits.
- Because Cooke’s information was filed before the 2022 repeal of § 58-37-8(2)(g), his prosecution may continue unabated under the original law.
- Prior cases such as Belt v. Turner, 479 P.2d 791 (Utah 1971), and State v. Tapp, 490 P.2d 334 (Utah 1971), are limited to ameliorative sentencing amendments and do not require dismissal of prosecutions upon outright statutory repeal.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
- Belt v. Turner (1971): held that an ameliorative sentencing amendment—one reducing penalties—must apply if it takes effect before sentencing because no penalty is “incurred” until the sentence is imposed. Saved by the saving statute only after sentencing.
- State v. Tapp (1971): reaffirmed that rule in the context of reduced marijuana-possession penalties.
- Holiday v. United States (D.C. 1996): summarizes the common‐law “abatement doctrine” under which repeals extinguished pending prosecutions unless saved by statute.
- Buttrey v. Guaranteed Sec. Co. (1931) and Agee (1920): Utah decisions applying § 68-3-5 to civil claims pending at the time of repeal.
Legal Reasoning
1. Doctrine of Abatement vs. Saving Statutes. Historically, repeals of criminal statutes abated all pending prosecutions at common law. To avoid this result, legislatures enacted saving provisions—first on a case-by-case basis, later in general form—to preserve ongoing actions. Utah’s general saving statute (§ 68-3-5) is such a provision.
2. Plain Language Controls. Section 68-3-5 provides: “The repeal of a statute does not … affect … any action or proceeding commenced under or by virtue of the statute repealed.” The Court emphasized that “action” and “proceeding” have long encompassed both civil and criminal contexts—from Black’s Law Dictionary (1891) through the present. Because no carve-out for criminal prosecutions appears, the saving statute’s default rule is non-abatement of any proceeding already begun.
3. Limitation of Belt and Tapp. Those cases dealt solely with ameliorative sentencing amendments that reduce penalties; they held that a defendant, having incurred no sentence until sentencing occurs, is entitled to benefit from such amendments. They did not address whether repeals of substantive offenses abate prosecutions. Accordingly, they have no bearing on a repeal scenario.
4. No Legislative Intent to Abate. The 2022 amendment repealed the old offense and enacted new, re-codified offenses in Title 76. The Legislature included no language suggesting that pending actions under the old crime would abate. Under § 68-3-5, absent such contrary direction, ongoing proceedings survive.
Impact
State v. Cooke clarifies that under Utah law:
- Pending criminal prosecutions cannot be extinguished by a subsequent repeal of the charged statute, unless the Legislature expressly so provides.
- Utah’s general saving statute applies broadly to both civil and criminal actions.
- Courts should distinguish between (a) substantive repeals or recodifications of offenses (governed by § 68-3-5’s non-abatement rule) and (b) ameliorative sentencing amendments (governed by Belt/Tapp).
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Abatement Doctrine: Under old common law, if a criminal law was repealed, any pending cases under that law were automatically terminated.
- Saving Statute: A general legislative provision that “saves” or preserves existing lawsuits or prosecutions when a law is repealed, so they can continue unaffected.
- Ameliorative Sentencing Amendment: A change in law that reduces the penalty for a crime. Courts have held that if such a change takes effect before a defendant is sentenced, the defendant gets the benefit of the lighter penalty.
- “Commence” a Prosecution: In Utah, criminal prosecutions typically commence when an information or indictment is filed in court.
Conclusion
State v. Cooke confirms that Utah’s general saving statute (§ 68-3-5) insulates all proceedings—civil or criminal—that have been properly commenced from abatement by subsequent statutory repeal, unless the Legislature clearly directs otherwise. The decision distinguishes substantive repeals from ameliorative sentencing amendments (addressed in Belt and Tapp), ensuring that defendants remain prosecutable under the law prevailing at the time charges were filed. This ruling brings certainty to practitioners and underscores the importance of precise legislative drafting when lawmakers intend to affect ongoing prosecutions.
Comments