PROVO, Utah — Prosecutors in the ongoing double murder trial of Kent Cody Barlow have moved to admit evidence of his past criminal behavior, including a previous high-speed police chase and methamphetamine use, to challenge his defense claims of impaired judgment due to drugs. The prosecution argues that Barlow’s assertion that methamphetamine influenced his actions in the fatal crash that killed two children is part of a broader pattern of behavior, not a valid excuse.
The prosecution’s request to introduce this evidence was made during a hearing in Utah’s Fourth District Court, where Barlow is on trial for the deaths of 3-year-olds Hunter Jackson and Odin Ratliff. The children were killed in a crash at Cedar Valley Stables in Eagle Mountain on May 2, 2022, when Barlow, allegedly under the influence of methamphetamine, crashed his SUV through multiple fences at high speed. Barlow’s defense team has acknowledged that he caused the crash but has argued that he should be convicted of manslaughter or automobile homicide, not first-degree murder.
At the heart of the prosecution’s motion is Barlow’s 2019 criminal history, including an incident in which he stole a motorcycle, led police on a high-speed chase, and stole a police cruiser. During this event, Barlow was found to have methamphetamine in his possession and later claimed that his drug use had impaired his judgment. Prosecutors argue that this prior conduct is relevant to demonstrating that Barlow’s use of methamphetamine in the 2022 crash was not a one-off occurrence but part of a recurring pattern of reckless behavior.
During a virtual hearing on the matter, Deputy County Attorney Ryan McBride highlighted that Barlow’s actions in the 2019 case — including speeding at over 100 miles per hour and making statements about being on a “binge of a lifetime” — are highly probative of his mental state and intent in the current case. He argued that this past behavior shows a consistent pattern of reckless and dangerous actions while under the influence of methamphetamine, undermining Barlow’s claim that the drugs impaired his judgment during the fatal crash.
However, Barlow’s defense team, led by public defenders Justin Morrison and Michael Brown, argued that introducing evidence of his past criminal conduct would be unduly prejudicial. They contend that the prosecution is attempting to paint Barlow as a “bad person” rather than focusing on the specific elements of the current case. The defense also emphasized that the jury should not be swayed by Barlow’s past behavior, which they argue is not directly relevant to the charges at hand.
Judge Derek Pullan, who is presiding over the trial, expressed concern about the potential for the jury to be influenced by Barlow’s criminal history, particularly if the evidence did not directly relate to the charges in the current case. He questioned whether the jury should be informed of Barlow’s past actions, given the risk of unfair prejudice. However, he also acknowledged that the prosecution’s evidence could be seen as probative of Barlow’s mental state and intent at the time of the crash.
In addition to the criminal history, prosecutors also sought to introduce evidence that Barlow was on parole at the time of the crash, suggesting that his continued criminal behavior indicated an awareness of the risks associated with his actions. Judge Pullan questioned the relevance of this information, as it did not directly pertain to the charges, but acknowledged that it could play a role in establishing Barlow’s state of mind.
Another legal issue raised during the hearing was whether it mattered whether Barlow knew the children were in the vicinity of the crash. Judge Pullan speculated that under the legal doctrine of “transferred intent,” it might not matter whether Barlow was aware of the children’s presence as long as they were within the “zone of danger” created by his reckless driving. This concept could play a crucial role in determining whether Barlow acted with “depraved indifference,” a key element in the murder charges.
The prosecution has argued that Barlow’s actions, including driving at high speeds while under the influence of methamphetamine, demonstrated a disregard for human life and created a grave risk of death to others, including the children. The defense, on the other hand, contends that the primary issue is whether the children were within the “zone of danger” and whether Barlow had the intent necessary to be convicted of murder.
As the trial continues, Judge Pullan’s decision on the admissibility of Barlow’s past criminal history will be crucial in shaping the jury’s understanding of the case. The judge is expected to rule on the motion in the coming days, following additional deliberations on the legal questions surrounding the evidence and the potential for prejudice.
Barlow’s case has drawn significant attention, not only due to the tragic deaths of the two children but also because of the complex legal issues at play, including the use of prior criminal conduct as evidence, the scope of depraved indifference, and the legal ramifications of voluntary intoxication as a defense.