No. 37464 (Amendment): Rule R671-519. Proceedings When Criminal Charges Result in Acquittal

(Amendment)

DAR File No.: 37464
Filed: 03/29/2013 04:55:07 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of this rule is to detail procedures for when proceedings regarding criminal charges result in acquittal and outlines policies governing evidence explanation and personal appearance.

Summary of the rule or change:

This rule change clarifies the language of the rule and also clarifies what supplementary materials the parolee may provide.

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Section 77-27-11
• Section 77-27-5
• Section 77-27-9

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

Enactment of this rule amendment will have no fiscal impact and will impose no cost or savings to state government. The Board determined that there is no cost or savings because this rule is just a written articulation of an already-functioning internal Board procedure.

local governments:

Enactment of this rule amendment will have no fiscal impact and will impose no cost or savings to local governments. The Board determined that there is no cost or savings because this rule is just a written articulation of an already-functioning internal Board procedure.

small businesses:

Enactment of this rule amendment will have no fiscal impact and will impose no cost or savings to small businesses. The Board determined that there is no cost or savings because this rule is just a written articulation of an already-functioning internal Board procedure.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

Enactment of this rule amendment will have no fiscal impact and will impose no cost or savings to any other person. The Board determined that there is no cost or savings because this rule is just a written articulation of an already-functioning internal Board procedure.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There is no compliance cost for affected persons. The Board determined that there is no cost or savings because this rule is just a written articulation of an already-functioning internal Board procedure.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

The Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Parole has considered this rule amendment, and finds that there is no fiscal impact on businesses because of this rule amendment. Interested persons may present their views on the rule pursuant to Division of Administrative Rules process and procedures. A public meeting was scheduled, noticed, and held regarding this rule amendment on Monday, 03/04/2013 at 8:00 a.m. No person attended the hearing to comment on this rule amendment, and no comments have been received by the Board.

Clark A. Harms, Chairman

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Pardons (Board Of)
AdministrationRoom 300
448 E 6400 S
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84107-8530

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• John Green at the above address, by phone at 801-261-6464, by FAX at 801-261-6481, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

05/15/2013

This rule may become effective on:

05/22/2013

Authorized by:

Clark Harms, Chairman

RULE TEXT

R671. Pardons (Board of),Administration.

R671-519. Proceedings When CriminalCharges Result in Acquittal.

R671-519-1. Proceedings When CriminalCharges Result in Acquittal.

1. If the basis for a parole revocation proceeding is a criminal charge of[in] which the parolee [was]is later acquitted, the parole agent or representative ofthe State may submit as its sole evidence the transcript from thecriminal trial, which shall be disclosed to the parolee.

2. The parolee may submit a response to the trial transcriptsubmission or otherwise submit any information to supplement therecord.[If the parolee believes submission on the transcript isinsufficient, the parolee shall inform the Board of any objectionand provide a rationale for the objection. Nevertheless, a trial atwhich the parolee was represented by counsel is presumed sufficientfor the hearing official to determine by a preponderance of theevidence whether parole was violated.]

 

R671-519-2. Evidence Explanation.

[Both parties]Any party may file memoranda explaining whether[how] the evidence provided at the trial [either did, or did not, provide]was sufficient[ evidence], under a preponderance standard, forfinding a parole violation. Such memoranda shall not exceed ten[ (10)], double-spaced, typed pages in length(excluding exhibits), except in cases where the [b]Board has granted leave to exceed this limit.

 

R671-519-3. Personal Appearance.

A personal appearance hearing is notrequired [under this rule ]for purposes of arguing theevidence. However, if, after reviewing the transcripts andmemoranda, the hearing official concludes that parole has beenviolated, a personal appearance hearing may be held for purposes ofdetermining disposition and hearing[listening to any] victim testimony[comments].

 

KEY: parole, acquit, hearings

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [October 25, 2007]2013

Notice of Continuation: February 15,2013

Authorizing, and Implemented orInterpreted Law: 77-27-5; 77-27-9; 77-27-11

 

---