State v. Blake

Supreme Court of the State of Utah · 2025 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawEvidenceRestitutionLaw of the CaseMandate Rulerestitutionlaw of the casemandate rule

Facts

Blake shot the victim twice in the arm during an argument, and the victim required hospital treatment to remove a bullet and repair his arm. The Utah Office for Victims of Crime paid $36,701.56 in medical expenses. The State timely sought restitution within one year of sentencing, but the first restitution order was reversed because the evidence tying the listed expenses to the shooting was insufficient. On return to the district court, the court held an evidentiary hearing, received fuller billing records and testimony from a UOVC representative, and entered a new restitution order.

Issue

When an appellate court reverses a restitution order for insufficient evidence but does not expressly remand, may the district court hold a second restitution hearing and enter a new restitution order? Also, was the State's renewed restitution request timely, and was the second restitution order supported by sufficient evidence?

Rule

Res judicata does not apply within the same case; the law of the case doctrine governs instead. A reversal invalidates the trial court order but does not bar further proceedings unless the appellate court expressly says no further action is required; absent such language, the trial court must consider the context of the prior decision to determine what proceedings justice requires. In the restitution context, if the State timely submitted a restitution request and the original restitution order is later reversed, the request remains unresolved and the district court may hold a second restitution hearing to complete the mandatory restitution component of sentencing.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a criminal case in Ogden, the prosecution timely sought restitution for counseling expenses paid by Wasatch Victim Relief. The trial court entered a restitution order, an appellate court reversed that order for insufficient proof, and back in the same prosecution the defendant argued that claim preclusion barred any further restitution proceedings.

Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that res judicata does not apply within the same case. When a matter returns to the trial court in the same criminal prosecution, the relevant framework is the law-of-the-case doctrine, including the mandate rule, not claim preclusion. (Derived from State v. Blake (n.d.).)