The Utah Court of Appeals ruled on October 8, 2026, in the case of State v. Carl Anthony Conde, affirming a lower court's decision to dismiss theft charges against Conde. The ruling affects three homeowners who contracted Conde to build swimming pools and related features, only to find their projects left incomplete. This decision highlights the challenges homeowners face in construction disputes and the legal standards for proving criminal intent in theft cases.
In this case, Conde was charged with three counts of theft by deception and one count of engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity after he failed to complete pool projects for homeowners Barbara, Ronald, and Hank. The homeowners had made substantial payments to Conde, but he abandoned the projects, leading to the criminal charges. The case reached the Utah Court of Appeals after the district court judge declined to bind Conde over for trial, stating there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent.
The parties involved in this case are the State of Utah, represented by attorneys Derek E. Brown, Jonathan S. Bauer, and Eric Thorne, and Carl Anthony Conde, represented by attorney Nathalie S. Skibine. The dispute arose when Conde entered into contracts with the homeowners, promising to complete their pool projects within specific timeframes. However, after receiving significant payments, Conde failed to fulfill his obligations, leading to the charges against him.
The case began when the homeowners filed complaints against Conde for not completing their projects. Barbara contracted with Conde in July 2021 to construct a pool and related features, paying him a total of $197,000. Despite some initial work, the project was left incomplete, and Conde stopped communicating with Barbara. Ronald and Hank faced similar issues with Conde, who also abandoned their projects after receiving substantial payments.
During the preliminary hearing, the State presented evidence from the homeowners, detailing Conde's failure to complete the work as promised. However, the magistrate ruled that while Conde had obtained payments from the homeowners, there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted with the intent to deceive. The magistrate noted that Conde's business was failing, and he had attempted to renegotiate terms with the homeowners rather than outright abandon the projects.
The court ruled, "I don’t see that there was an intent even at that stage when things were starting to fall apart because that is a very common occurrence for businesses that are starting to go under, to try and renegotiate..." This statement reflects the court's view that Conde's actions did not meet the legal standard for theft by deception, which requires proof of intent to deprive the homeowners of their property.
The ruling from the Utah Court of Appeals confirms that the State did not present enough evidence to establish probable cause for the theft charges. The court emphasized that mere negligence or poor business practices do not constitute criminal behavior. The judges involved in this decision included Judge John D. Luthy, with Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan M. Harris concurring.
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners who may find themselves in similar situations with contractors. It underscores the importance of establishing clear evidence of intent when pursuing criminal charges related to theft or deception in business practices. Homeowners must be vigilant in documenting their agreements and communications with contractors to protect their interests.
The decision also highlights the challenges that state prosecutors face in proving criminal intent in cases involving business failures. The court's ruling suggests that simply failing to complete a contract, even when it results in financial loss for the other party, may not be enough to support criminal charges unless there is clear evidence of intent to deceive.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen if the State will appeal this ruling or if similar cases will arise in the future. The court's decision sets a precedent for how theft by deception cases are evaluated, particularly in the context of construction and contract disputes. Homeowners and contractors alike may need to adjust their approaches based on the legal standards established by this ruling.
In conclusion, the Utah Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of theft charges against Carl Anthony Conde, impacting homeowners who contracted him for pool construction. The ruling emphasizes the need for clear evidence of intent in theft by deception cases and may influence future legal disputes in the construction industry.