recognizing the ancillary benefits of the preliminary hearing
How later courts described this case
- recognizing the ancillary benefits of the preliminary hearing
- explaining history of preliminary examinations
- “we see no principled basis for attempting to maintain a distinction between the arrest warrant probable cause standard and the preliminary hearing probable cause standard. . . . This ‘reasonable belief’ standard has the advantage of being more easily understood while still allowing magistrates to fulfill the primary purpose of the preliminary hearing, ‘ferreting out. . . groundless and improvident prosecutions’ ”
- "[The probable cause showing at the preliminary examination must establish a prima facie case against the defendant from which the trier of fact could conclude the defendant was guilty of the offense as charged."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by State v. Clark, 414 Utah Adv. Rep. 10 (2001)
State v. Anderson, 612 P.2d 778, 783 (Utah 1980) (emphasis added), overruled by State v. Clark, 2001 UT 9, ¶ 16, 20 P.3d 300.
The opinion
HALL, Justice
(concurring in result):
I concur in the disposition of the appeal, but reserve judgment on the constitutional issue discussed in the main opinion since it is not essential to the decision in this case. 1
. See Hoyle v. Monson, Utah, 606 P.2d 240 (1980), see also, Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368 , 374 P.2d 839 (1966).