The Utah Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of Kevin Michael Collard, who was found guilty of violating a protective order. The court ruled that Collard's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of prejudicial evidence during the trial. This decision, filed on June 4, 2026, affects Collard's legal standing and may impact future cases involving protective orders.
Collard was initially convicted on three counts of violating a protective order issued against him in favor of his ex-wife, Olivia. The court's ruling means that Collard will have a new trial, allowing him another opportunity to contest the charges against him.
Background
The case began when Collard and Olivia were married in 2018. In March 2020, a temporary protective order was issued against Collard after Olivia alleged that he had abused her or threatened her safety. The order prohibited Collard from contacting Olivia in any form, including phone calls, and required him to stay away from her workplace and residence.
Collard was charged with violating the protective order after he made phone calls to Olivia's workplace, Home Depot, on April 7 and April 13, 2020. During these calls, Collard expressed a desire to speak with Olivia, which led to the charges against him. His trial took place in 2024, three years after the incidents occurred.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled to affirm the denial of Collard's motion to arrest judgment on the charges related to the April 7 call. However, the court found that Collard's trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the admission of an unredacted copy of the temporary protective order into evidence. This document included a statement that there was reason to believe Collard had committed domestic violence against Olivia.
The court stated, "Counsel’s failure to seek redaction of the finding that 'there [was] reason to believe' that Collard 'abused or committed domestic violence' against Olivia constituted deficient performance."
Judge John D. Luthy authored the opinion, with Judges Michele M. Christiansen Forster and Ryan M. Harris concurring. The court's decision emphasized that the prejudicial nature of the evidence could have influenced the jury's verdict against Collard.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Collard, as it allows him to have a new trial where he can contest the charges without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial. The court's decision highlights the importance of effective legal representation, particularly in cases involving protective orders, where the stakes can be high for the accused.
The ruling also serves as a reminder for attorneys to be vigilant about the evidence presented during trials, especially when it can unfairly sway a jury. The court's acknowledgment of ineffective assistance of counsel could influence future cases where defendants claim their legal representation did not meet the required standards.
What's Next
Collard's case will be remanded for a new trial, allowing him another chance to defend himself against the charges. It remains to be seen whether the prosecution will pursue the case again or if any related cases are pending in the courts. The outcome of the new trial could set a precedent for how protective order violations are handled in Utah.