- Judge Jennifer Valencia denied Alan Brower Bassett's request to dismiss charges.
- Bassett is accused of sexually abusing children in Fruit Heights in the 1980s.
- An alleged 1989 agreement with the state was deemed void by the court.
FARMINGTON — A 2nd District Court judge ruled against dismissing a decades-old sexual abuse case for a man who allegedly "terrorized" a Fruit Heights neighborhood, deeming an alleged 1989 agreement he had with the state void.
Alan Brower Bassett, 76, of Payson, is accused of sexually abusing multiple children in a Fruit Heights neighborhood in the 1980s. He was charged in June 2024 with nine counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony, after several women came forward to law enforcement in 2021.
The abuse is alleged to have taken place between the time Bassett moved his family into a new Fruit Heights neighborhood in 1977 until he moved out of the neighborhood in 1989, court records state. The allegations detail the man sexually assaulting the friends of his children when they came over for sleepovers, visits or hikes when they were between 5 and 10 years old.
Bassett's former neighbor Patrice Pederson said there is an online support network with about 50 women accusing Bassett of abuse. Kristy Sauter, who lived near the Bassett house in the 1980s, said Bassett "terrorized our neighborhood."
Throughout the last year, Bassett's attorneys have been attempting to get the case dismissed, citing a 35-year-old "nonprosecution agreement" with the Davis County Attorney's Office, which said the state would not file charges for Bassett's alleged "sexual activities" if he would complete a sexual abuse treatment program, meet with each alleged victim and their parents and disclose all of his conduct to them, and pay for any alleged victim's therapy expenses, among other stipulations.
The defense argued at a hearing in July that the state filing charges against Bassett goes against the agreement he had and violates his due process rights.
No signed version of the "nonprosecution agreement" has been found by either party; however, a separate letter referring to the agreement being signed in May 1989 was submitted as evidence of a contract.
In a ruling Wednesday, 2nd District Judge Jennifer Valencia said the court denies the motion to dismiss as "there is neither substantial cause nor is it in the furtherance of justice to dismiss the (charges)." The court also did not find that due process was violated as Bassett did not demonstrate any detriment to his life for relying on the alleged contract.
Valencia said the case's "central issue" pertained to the "existence, validity and enforcement" of the alleged agreement.
"The state determined that (Bassett) had either materially breached any agreement or fraudulently induced it," the ruling says.
"While it seems likely based upon circumstantial evidence that some sort of an agreement was reached, there are numerous ambiguities as to the actual terms of the contract. Each of those ambiguities lead this court to conclude that the contract cannot be interpreted as a matter of law and that (Bassett) is not entitled to specific performance of it," the ruling states.
Valencia continues to say the case cannot be dismissed as Bassett didn't fully comply with the agreement. Testimonies of multiple women at a March hearing indicate Bassett did not meet with every victim, significantly minimized his conduct to the families he did meet with, and did not pay for any therapy.
Bassett himself testified in March that he "knew there were more (victims). I just couldn't remember who they were."
Bassett "admitted he had a sexual addiction and sexually abused many young girls who visited his home. He acknowledged during his testimony that he had sexually abused so many children during that time frame that it would be very difficult to recall every one of his victims," the court ruling states.
He also acknowledged that "law enforcement didn't know the extent of his sexual abuse activities before the agreement was generated in 1989," the ruling says.
Valencia deemed the alleged contract void because it violated public policy due to a law that disallowed diversion agreements for any sex offense involving a child under 14. Public policy also states immunity could only be approved by the elected county attorney or an attorney general, neither of whom were involved in the authorization of the proposed or alleged final agreement which was drafted by the deputy county attorney and Bassett's lawyer.
The contract violated victims' rights by failing to inform them of the agreement, despite that being "explicitly contemplated by the purported agreement," the judge said.
"As to each of the victims who were never disclosed by the defendant in 1989, and as to all of the victims who were never contacted or advised as to the purported agreement between the defendant and the state, dismissal of the information at this stage of the proceedings is most certainly not in the furtherance of justice for them," Valencia said.
Both the defense and prosecution made it clear in July that if the judge's decision on the motion to dismiss did not go their way, they would be submitting an appeal. Bassett's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment, and no appeals have been filed as of Thursday.
