Provo judge grants motion to dismiss information in State v. Mark Allen, cites vague confidentiality term

A presiding judge in Fourth District Court in Provo granted a motion to dismiss information in State of Utah v. Mark Allen (case no. 2114011656), saying the contested confidentiality term in an on‑the‑record agreement was too vaguely framed to be enforced as barring future filings.

The judge told counsel he reviewed the briefing and minute entry and concluded the record shows an oral statement rather than a clear written contract. “I would consider this an oral contract, but I would need some… testimony or otherwise for me to show that the parties clearly understood what public forum meant,” the judge said, expressing concern about the agreement’s vagueness.

The defense argued the agreement was intended to shield the alleged victim from further harassment and not to prevent Mr. Allen from pursuing statutory remedies. Defense counsel emphasized differences in how courts treat “public forum” in First Amendment contexts and argued that the expungement filing was an attempt to invoke a statutory remedy rather than to publish accusations. “It wasn’t intended for these statements to become a matter of… public awareness,” defense counsel said, urging the court to enforce the agreement in a way that would not bar the expungement petition.

The county/AG prosecutor, Greg Peterson, countered that the dismissal had been entered with conditions and that Mr. Allen knew those conditions; Peterson said Allen’s filing attacked the victim and therefore violated the agreement. Peterson argued that because the dismissal had conditions, the prosecutor’s refile was justified. “He knew he wasn’t eligible for an expungement, yet he did it anyway,” Peterson said, summarizing the state’s position that expungement was not available under the circumstances.

The judge focused on whether a filing — rather than an in‑court, on‑the‑record hearing — should be treated as a “public forum.” Counsel noted pleadings are publicly accessible unless sealed and that media often access such filings; the prosecutor acknowledged he had not found controlling U.S. authority treating a filing as a public forum. Addressing those points, the judge observed that traditionally courts have not treated pleadings as creating a public forum and said the ambiguous contractual term must be construed against its drafter.

Ruling from the bench, the judge granted the motion to dismiss the information “based on the following grounds” and explained that because the contract term is vague it must be construed against the drafting party (the county attorney). The judge entered the dismissal without prejudice, noting the statute of limitations had been waived by the prior contract and warning Mr. Allen that the state may refile if it believes the agreement has been violated. “This is granted without prejudice… That means it can be refiled anytime the state believed that you violated that contract,” the judge said.

The court asked counsel to prepare a proposed written order containing findings of fact and to circulate it to Greg Peterson; the judge said he would sign the order if approved by counsel. No hearing date for further proceedings was set during the oral ruling.