Estimated read time: 1-2 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
John Daley ReportingIs it fraud or free speech? Utah Supreme Court Justices are weighing that question tonight in a case involving a man and his girlfriend who gave a hospital emergency room fake names, addresses and other personal information.
The Utah Supreme Court heard a series of cases revolving around the First Amendment and state fraud laws today. One involves a situation from December of 2001 at Utah Valley Regional Medical Center. A man named Richard Jeremy Mattinson he took his girlfriend, Stevoni Wells to the emergency room to have her treated for spinal meningitis.
The bill ended up costing more than 58-hundred dollars. But Wells left without paying and both gave false names, addresses and other information. She pleaded guilty to forgery and a jury convicted Mattinson on one count of communications fraud.
His attorney appealed that conviction, saying Utah's fraud statute is so vague it could include things like a politician's false campaign promise, a clothing salesman who falsely tells a customer, "You don't look fat in that dress" or a student who claims, "The dog ate my homework."
Jennifer Gowans, Attorney: "We're claiming that the statute is unconstitutional because it allows prosecution of any harmless type of falsehood. The way we read it, any falsehood could be prosecuted under this statute, any falsehood."
Matthew Bates, Asst. Attorney General: "The first amendment was never designed to protect liars. It's there to encourage free and open public debate about public issues. And while it does extend some protection into the private arena, it was never designed to protect calculated falsehoods."
This may be the first time a fraud statute has been challenged on a First Amendment argument. The court issued no decision and took the case under advisement.
