Font ResizeFor years, Peggy Hay and Patricia Hay battled to overturn a plea bargain that gave a clean slate to the reckless driver who caused an accident that killed their husbands.
On Friday, their fight ended when the Utah Supreme Court ruled the widows have no right to appeal the deal given to Brandon R. Lane, who was sentenced to perform 40 hours of community service and take an eight-hour driving course as punishment for the fatal crash.
Despite the disappointing loss, Hay family members and their lawyer see a silver lining: The case led to the passage of the Crime Victim's Remedies Act by Utah lawmakers this spring. The statute authorizes judges to hold new plea hearings or new sentencings when victims' rights have been violated.
Cathi Bosco, Patricia Hay's daughter, said the family pushed to overturn Lane's plea deal to help other victims.
"The [new] law won't help us but it certainly will help others," she said. "I think the case brought a lot of awareness of victims' rights to courthouses."
In their unanimous decision, the high court justices said "our hands are tied" because only the state and the defendant are parties in a case. Victims are not parties and have no independent authority to appeal once a case has ended, Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote for the court.
Lane, 30, and his attorneys, who argued last year it would be unfair to reopen the case now that the plea conditions had been met, could not be
Brothers John and Dan Hay and their wives were headed to their Colorado homes in February 2005 when Lane, who was trying to pass a semitrailer on U.S. 40, hit their Jeep head-on, according to court records. The men were killed instantly.
Their widows say then-Duchesne County Attorney Karen Allen told them Lane would plead guilty in 8th District Court to one count of negligent homicide and his plea to a second count of negligent homicide would be held in abeyance. Instead, Allen asked the judge to hold both pleas in abeyance, meaning they would eventually be wiped off his record.
Allen has insisted she told the Hays about the deal.
In addition to the community service and driving course, Lane agreed to pay $1,500 in restitution but the sentencing judge ultimately did not award any money to the Hays, according to court records. The case was eventually dismissed.
In their ruling, the justices reasoned the very provisions enacted to help victims -- the Utah Constitution's Victims' Rights Amendment and the Rights of Crime Victims Act -- bar an appeal by the Hays. Durham noted that these provisions were written so the victim's rights would not infringe on the constitutional protections given to the defendant.
Attorney Heidi Nestel, who represents the Hays, argued the provisions were meant to stop criminals from appealing their sentences on the basis that the rights of a victim had been violated.
Nestel added she had hoped for a decision on other issues raised in the case, which included the argument that the plea in abeyance was illegal because a prosecutor cannot waive a victim's right to restitution. The Supreme Court decided the issues were moot.
The justices did say the allegations made against Allen are "troubling" and suggested the Hays could file a complaint with the Utah State Bar.
"We hope and expect that the trial courts will continue to be vigilant in their efforts to recognize crime victims' constitutional rights," the ruling says.
