- The Utah House voted 67-3 to censure Judge Don Torgerson for comments made during a sentencing hearing.
- Torgerson's remarks during a 2025 sentencing hearing were deemed "indefensible" by lawmakers.
- Opponents argued that disciplinary action should be left to professional organizations, not the Legislature.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives voted Tuesday to censure a district court judge over comments he made during a sentencing hearing last year.
The rare move, which lawmakers approved in a 67-3 vote, came after a KSL report about that hearing in Grand County, which was presided over by 7th District Judge Don Torgerson.
During the hearing, Torgerson twice referred to the defendant's "privilege" before deciding not to require him to serve any additional time behind bars or pay a fine for possessing and distributing multiple images of children being raped and sexually abused. After viewing some of those images, Torgerson also told the court he had "seen worse" during his work as a defense attorney.
Those comments, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz told his colleagues, were "indefensible."
"I've said things that I'm not happy about or that I regret saying. I think we all have," said Schultz, who temporarily left the speaker's dais in the House chambers to speak in support of the censure resolution, HR8. "But what comes next is you stand up, you own it, and you apologize. You don't double down, especially on something as serious as this issue."
What did the judge say?
This issue dates back to May 20, 2025, when Torgerson presided over a sentencing hearing for Aidan Hoffman, who was 22 at the time. According to court documents, Hoffman possessed and distributed child sexual abuse material, including images of children being raped.
Hoffman pleaded guilty to two felonies. Ten others were dropped. Prosecutors pushed for prison time, while Hoffman's defense attorney asked for no additional incarceration, arguing it fell within the recommended sentencing guidelines.
As Torgerson conducted the sentencing, he referred to the nearly four months Hoffman had already spent in jail before getting released with conditions, saying that "112 days is a lot of jail time. It's a lot of jail time for someone your age who comes from some level of privilege."
While scolding Hoffman for his crimes, the judge also suggested the defendant could help other young men in his situation. He ended up placing Hoffman on probation for four years while requiring him to register as a sex offender.
"You have more of a voice than some," Torgerson said, "because you do come from a background of some privilege."
During the hearing, Torgerson also viewed two videos Hoffman possessed showing children being raped and abused. Afterward, the judge noted he's "seen worse" while adding that he was not meant to "minimize" what Hoffman did.
After details of the sentencing hearing came to light, multiple complaints against Torgerson were filed with the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission. That body called the judge's behavior "troubling" but ultimately dismissed the complaints "with a warning."
'How would you feel?'
During the House debate on Tuesday, Rep. Matt MacPherson, R-West Valley City, the sponsor of the resolution to censure Torgerson, said the judge's comments were "unacceptable."
"If it was your child in that video," MacPherson asked his fellow lawmakers, "and you had to hear a judge say that in open court on the record, how would you feel?"
Rep. Grant Amjad Miller, D-Salt Lake City, a defense attorney and one of only a handful of lawmakers to vote against the resolution, argued that disciplinary action should be left to professional organizations.
"I want to know what his mindset was when he said that," Miller said of Torgerson's comments. "Otherwise, I don't know how to divine what he meant, whether or not there was malice intended, whether or not he was speaking extemporaneously and misspoke. I want to know the context."
House Majority Whip Candice Pierucci, R-Riverton, responded sharply to that.
"It was a young child being grossly sexually abused and raped," Pierucci said. "There's the context for you. And for any judge to try to minimize child sexual abuse, they should be off the bench."
Earlier this week, during a committee hearing, a representative for the Utah State Courts acknowledged that even Torgerson would admit, in hindsight, "that there were statements made that would be made differently." But the court representative also challenged the notion that the judge gave the defendant a lighter sentence because of that.
The state judiciary also initially criticized KSL's reporting of this case, saying the plea agreement specified the "defendant would receive probation, rather than a prison sentence." But the prosecutor pointed out the agreement allowed him to argue for additional incarceration, which is exactly what happened during the hearing when he asked for prison time.
The House resolution called the statement from the courts "inaccurate."
Besides that and Torgerson's comments, lawmakers also took issue with the judge's lack of public remorse.
"Instead, we've heard silence," said Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan. "No apologies. No remorse. Nothing."
"If there was a public apology — if there was any ownership at all for the actions of this judge — I don't think we'd be standing here today," said Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Syracuse.
Voter awareness
This is only the second legislative censure in recent history. In 2024, both the House and Senate censured then-State School Board member Natalie Cline after she publicly questioned a high school student's gender.
The Utah Senate did not join the House in censuring Torgerson. The House speaker has said that's because Torgerson is friends with Senate Majority Assistant Whip Mike McKell.
McKell, R-Spanish Fork, told reporters this week he thought the censure was "misguided" while criticizing the prosecutor in the case for dropping other felony counts as part of the plea deal.
In the end, House lawmakers on Tuesday said the censure should help voters understand what Torgerson said as he faces a retention election in 2028.
"The public should weigh that," Teuscher said, "when they're making the decision ultimately whether or not to retain this judge."
