Supreme Court finds child abuse charge against Park City High tennis coach should be revived

The Utah Supreme Court ruled charges against Lani Wilcox, a former Park City High tennis coach, should be revived in a ruling on Thursday finding it was wrongfully dismissed under a new self-defense law.

The Utah Supreme Court ruled charges against Lani Wilcox, a former Park City High tennis coach, should be revived in a ruling on Thursday finding it was wrongfully dismissed under a new self-defense law. (Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret News)


1 photo
Save Story
KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Utah Supreme Court revived charges against former Park City High tennis coach Lani Wilcox on Thursday.
  • Charges include aggravated child abuse and interrupting communication device use, and stemmed from an argument with a student during practice.
  • The court found prosecutors disproved Wilcox's claim that she was defending others on the court, saying it was not reasonable.

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's Supreme Court revived a case against a Park City High School girls' tennis coach in a ruling on Thursday, deciding charges filed against her after a physical confrontation with a student should not have been dismissed.

The charges against Lani Wilcox, 65, were dismissed in May 2023 after 3rd District Judge Richard Mrazik ruled that she was justified because she was defending herself or others.

Now, the state Supreme Court ordered those charges against the former coach — aggravated child abuse, a third-degree felony, and interrupting the use of a communication device, a class A misdemeanor — to be considered again.

The judges found that prosecutors disproved Wilcox's claim that she was defending others on the tennis court. This is the first time the high court has addressed the second stage of pretrial justification hearings since the process became law in 2021, providing a way for a judge to decide if a defendant was justified under self-defense laws.

According to the order, Wilcox told a 16-year-old athlete that she would be playing on the junior varsity team in an upcoming match, and the girl became upset and left the court. Later, the girl returned and approached Wilcox, saying she felt calm and ready to practice, but the coach told her that since she had missed most of practice, she could not play the next day in any match.

The order says the conversation escalated and the student-athlete slapped Wilcox, leaving a red mark on her cheek. A photo provided by Wilcox shows the marks on her face.

Afterward, the coach wrapped both arms around the student; Wilcox testified that she restrained the girl so she would not injure the coach or anyone else because the student "was very, very angry."

Wilcox then lost her balance and fell to the ground, hitting her head and causing a concussion, before the student pushed her coach's arms away and stood up, the order said.

Related:

The order explained that the details of how the student was restrained are disputed. The student claims Wilcox's arms were around her neck, restricting her breathing, and she had red marks on her neck; Wilcox said she intended to restrain the student by her shoulders, and any neck contact was inadvertent and happened during the fall.

An assistant coach then told the student to go home, and the student kicked him in the groin before Wilcox restrained the student again for a few seconds, the order explains.

The girl got her phone and said she was calling the police, but Wilcox grabbed the phone and walked away, the document says, leading to the charge for interrupting the use of a phone.

A photo provided by Wilcox shows marks on her face from being slapped.

Mrazik concluded that Wilcox's testimony that she felt it was necessary to prevent the girl from hitting someone else was credible, and although she was not justified in using force to defend herself, she had met the required standard to show she was justified in defending others.

Prosecutors, however, argued that they had also proven she was not justified in defending others — specifically saying that the threat to others that Wilcox argued existed met the imminence requirements but was unreasonable.

The Supreme Court agreed, determining that prosecutors did meet their burden and the child abuse charge should not have been dismissed.

In addressing the second charge related to the phone, the high court said misdemeanor charges are not subject to dismissal through the pretrial justification statute, and so it should not have been dismissed.

Photos

The Key Takeaways for this article were generated with the assistance of large language models and reviewed by our editorial team. The article, itself, is solely human-written.

Related stories

Most recent Police & Courts stories

Related topics

Emily Ashcraft, KSLEmily Ashcraft
Emily Ashcraft is a reporter for KSL. She covers issues in state courts, health and religion. In her spare time, Emily enjoys crafting, cycling and raising chickens.

STAY IN THE KNOW

Get informative articles and interesting stories delivered to your inbox weekly. Subscribe to the KSL.com Trending 5.
By subscribing, you acknowledge and agree to KSL.com's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Newsletter Signup

KSL Weather Forecast

KSL Weather Forecast
Play button