Ogden, UT — A district court judge in Utah is under scrutiny after making seemingly contradictory statements during recent court hearings involving a convicted child kidnapper. Mark Vincent Devine, who was sentenced in connection with a kidnapping conviction, has faced ongoing legal challenges regarding the terms of his probation, especially concerning sex offender conditions.
The controversy began after a 2News investigation revealed that Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson had offered Devine a plea deal that dismissed five felony charges for sexual exploitation of a minor. This arrangement ensured that Devine would not be required to register as a sex offender, as the kidnapping conviction is not classified as a sex offense under the law.
Despite concerns raised by the investigation, which aired on January 30, 2025, Judge Richard Mrazik, who presided over Devine’s case, appeared to contradict himself regarding the probation terms in two separate hearings.
In a probation hearing on January 10, 2025, Devine was brought before the court for an “Order to Show Cause” hearing after he was accused of attempting to engage a 13-year-old girl walking home from school in Midvale. The girl reported that Devine had followed her, tried to get her phone number, and even offered to sell her a vape. During this hearing, Deputy Summit County Attorney Joe Hill argued that Devine’s behaviors strongly mirrored those of individuals who commit sex offenses.
However, Judge Mrazik maintained that it was not appropriate for Devine to adhere to “Group A” sex offender conditions, which include a range of strict restrictions for individuals convicted of sex crimes. He emphasized that Devine was not convicted of a sex offense and, therefore, should not be held to those specific conditions. Despite this stance, Judge Mrazik did order Devine to undergo sex offender therapy.
In a subsequent probation review hearing held on January 31, 2025, the judge’s position appeared to shift. At this hearing, Judge Mrazik acknowledged that Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) had added new terms to Devine’s probation, which he had not anticipated. The judge then backtracked on his previous statement and indicated that the “Group A Conditions” were now deemed appropriate for Devine, despite his lack of a sex offense conviction.
“The terms and conditions of your probation are amended to include conditions A through M of the Sex Offender Group A Conditions,” Mrazik told Devine. “Not because you’re a sex offender, but because those conditions are appropriate for the conduct for which you have been convicted.”
Group A conditions include prohibitions on contact with children under the age of 18, banning the possession of sexually explicit material, and preventing offenders from attending places where children are present, such as schools, playgrounds, or family functions. While the judge emphasized that Devine was not being required to register as a sex offender, he explained that the other conditions were in line with the nature of his conviction.
Despite these amended terms, Mrazik made clear that Devine would not be subject to sex offender registration requirements, citing the legal nuances of the case.
“The registration requirement is not required and not appropriate under law given the circumstances of this case,” the judge concluded.
The shifting stance raises questions about the consistency of judicial decisions in cases involving individuals with criminal histories related to minors. Legal experts and advocacy groups have expressed concerns that the contradiction in Judge Mrazik’s rulings may create confusion and highlight potential gaps in the justice system’s approach to protecting vulnerable children.
Devine’s case remains under close scrutiny, with many questioning whether the imposed probation terms are sufficient to ensure the safety of the community.