A controversy has recently arisen about whether Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams abused his power to change a law to help a relative in a criminal case. The allegation is unsupported. And, more broadly, citizen legislators must remain free to propose fixing unfair laws, whenever and however they learn about them.
The debate stems from a Utah law regarding how to treat an 18-year-old high school student who has sex with a 13-year-old. Under previous law, such conduct would have been automatically treated as child rape, a first-degree felony carrying the possibility of a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. As a professor teaching criminal law at the University of Utah College of Law and a former judge, I’m familiar with these kinds of sentencing issues.
The abuse-of-power claim stems from distorting a Salt Lake Tribune story. The story recounted that Sen. Adams learned about these harsh sentences because a relative was facing such a charge. Thereafter, the allegation runs, the senator brought the issue to the attention of another senator, who then proposed a prospective change as part of a larger criminal justice reform bill. The bill passed both the Senate and House with bipartisan support, and the governor signed it into law in 2024.
After the amendment went into effect, the prosecutor and the defense attorney for Adams’ relative referred to it to support the appropriateness of a plea bargain. But the support was (at most) indirect, as the amendment was inapplicable. It did not apply retroactively. And the change in the law provided for a third-degree felony disposition for an 18-year-old offender in high school who engaged in non-forcible sexual activity with a 13-year-old. But the defendant agreed to plead guilty to a second-degree felony. Ultimately, the judge handling the matter approved the second-degree felony plea as an appropriate resolution.
In light of these events, a newly elected member of the Legislature, Sen. Nate Blouin, has called for Adams to resign. Blouin described the legislation as an example of “abuse of power.” This claim is false, I believe, because the legislation in question did not even apply to the case in question.
But more broadly, both the Senate and the House approved the legislation by wide margins. Presumably many legislators from both political parties were concerned about the severity of 25-to-life sentences for 18-year-old offenders in high school in the circumstances described above. To be sure, one can debate this conclusion — and I take no position on that issue. But the legislation obviously reflects a viable view.
So boiled down, then, the abuse-of-power argument seems to devolve to the claim that a senator should be forbidden from recommending consideration of even desirable legislation whenever he is alerted to the issue from a relative or friend. That argument flies directly in the face of Utah’s model of citizen legislators.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Utah is one of about only 10 states retaining a citizen legislature — where each legislator serves only part time and receives minimal pay. In some other states (such as California and New York), legislators work year-round with high pay and a large surrounding bureaucracy. But Utah’s legislators are expected to maintain their careers and other community connections. Because of these connections, Utah legislators often learn about problems that need to be legislatively addressed from family, friends, business associates and constituents.
Against this backdrop, it will regularly be the case that legislators propose laws to address problems that they learn about from people connected to them. This is commonplace, not “corruption.”
Indeed, so far as I can tell, no one criticizing Sen. Adams has actually called for reinstating severe penalties for 18-year-olds enrolled in high school who commit the crime at issue here. The unfortunate effect of this controversy is that legislators will now likely be more reluctant to consider even beneficial criminal justice reforms. Such efforts can easily — and unfairly — be portrayed as unreasonably helping criminals.
Contrary to Sen. Adams’ seemingly partisan critics, it is a good thing when Utah’s citizen legislators bring their everyday-life experience to policy-making. We should all hope that our elected representatives will propose changes in laws that they believe to be unfair, whenever they see them — and however they learn about them.
(Paul Cassell) Paul Cassell teaches criminal law and crime victims’ rights at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.
Paul Cassell currently teaches criminal law and crime victims’ rights at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. The views expressed here are his own, not his employer’s.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible