## Facts

- D. Chris Robertson was prosecuted and convicted in federal court for possession of child pornography.
- After the federal conviction, Utah charged Robertson with twenty counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under Utah law, based on the same underlying images and conduct.
- Robertson moved to bar the Utah prosecution under Utah Code § 76-1-404, arguing that a prior prosecution in another jurisdiction bars a later Utah prosecution for the “same offense” arising from the same conduct within concurrent jurisdiction.
- The state trial court rejected the statutory bar argument and entered convictions.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed based on precedent interpreting § 76-1-404 as consistent with the federal dual-sovereignty doctrine.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted review to reconsider that interpretation and determine whether § 76-1-404 bars the state prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah Code § 76-1-404 incorporates the federal dual-sovereignty doctrine or instead bars a Utah prosecution following a federal prosecution when both involve the “same offense” based on the same conduct.
2. What test governs “same offense” under § 76-1-404, including whether an elements-based *Blockburger*/*Sosa* analysis applies.
3. Whether Robertson’s federal possession conviction and Utah sexual-exploitation charges were the “same offense” arising from the same conduct, barring the Utah prosecution.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed.
- The court overruled prior precedent to the extent it treated § 76-1-404 as incorporating dual sovereignty.
- The court held that § 76-1-404’s “same offense” language rejects dual sovereignty and requires an elements-based *Blockburger–Sosa* test.
- Applying that test, the court concluded the federal and Utah charges were the same offense as charged and arose from the same conduct.
- Because § 76-1-404 applied, the Utah prosecution was barred and the Utah convictions were vacated.

## Legal Principles

- Utah Code § 76-1-404 bars a Utah prosecution when (1) a prior prosecution in another jurisdiction with concurrent jurisdiction ended in an acquittal, conviction, or termination, and (2) the Utah prosecution is for the “same offense or offenses.”
- For § 76-1-404, “same offense” is determined by the *Blockburger–Sosa* elements test: offenses are different only if each requires proof of an element the other does not.
- Section 76-1-404 provides statutory protection beyond the federal Double Jeopardy Clause by rejecting dual sovereignty where the statute’s conditions are met.

## Conclusion

Utah’s statutory bar to successive prosecutions prevents the State from prosecuting a defendant after a federal conviction when both prosecutions arise from the same conduct and the offenses are the same under an elements-based *Blockburger–Sosa* test; Robertson’s Utah convictions were therefore reversed.


State v. Robertson, 2017 UT 27 (Utah 2017)