State of Utah v. Spitler

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Bill B. Spitler,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040070-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 18, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 66

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Roger S. Dutson

Attorneys: Mark L. Shurtleff and Christine F. Soltis, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

D. Bruce Oliver, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

The State appeals the dismissal of a criminal information against Bill Spitler. The trial court dismissed the information at the close of the State's evidence in a jury trial in June 2003. The court ruled that, under the facts of the case, Spitler had a statutory right to defend against illegal entry, even by the police. This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion for summary disposition.

Spitler contends the appeal should be dismissed because jeopardy attached and the appeal is thus barred. In its response to Spitler's motion for summary disposition, the State concedes that this appeal is barred because the judgment amounts to an acquittal. The prosecution is barred from appealing from an acquittal "since doing so would violate the rule against double jeopardy." State v. Jackson, 857 P.2d 267, 269 (Utah Ct. App. 1993).

"The label attached to a ruling by a trial judge is not determinative of whether the termination of a criminal prosecution is an acquittal." State v. Musselman, 667 P.2d 1061, 1064 (Utah 1983). "A ruling that constitutes a factual resolution in favor of the defendant on one or more of the elements of the offense is an acquittal." Id. Here, the court determined that the officers were not acting within the scope of their authority, an element of the crime charged. As a result, the court's "dismissal" of the information "was clearly based on the trial court's assessment of the evidence and is an acquittal." Id. Therefore, this appeal is barred.

An appellate court may not review an acquittal "even though the acquittal was made under an incorrect application of the law or an improper determination of the facts." Id. at 1065. The State maintains that the court erred in its legal determinations, but concedes that the final order is not appealable.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge