DeBoer, a Browns Canyon resident, was arrested in December 2024 after he admitted he fatally shot Hideout resident Patrick Hayes in a September road rage altercation. He was charged with felony obstruction of justice, but not in connection with Hayes’ death.
His attorney, Andrew Deesing, asked Judge Jennifer Mabey not to send the case to trial Wednesday. He said his client had no obligation to come forward after the shooting, and that by staying quiet, DeBoer was protecting his right not to incriminate himself.
“Where else could he have put that gun, Judge, that it wouldn’t have been obstruction?” he said. “If he had put it on his front porch, exposed to the elements? If he hung it from his flagpole? I mean, even if he had put it in a closet under clothing, it’s functionally the same thing.”
However, he acknowledged DeBoer “didn’t pick the greatest spot” to put the gun.
Deesing said DeBoer shouldn’t face the obstruction charge because he ultimately told investigators where to find the gun during a search of his property last November: wrapped in tin foil, plastic and duct tape, placed in a gun case and buried under a rock.
“Whatever he intended at the time, we don’t know,” he said. “But when the rubber met the road, he aided the investigation.”
Deesing also argued his client did not necessarily know that police were looking for the gun.
Mabey pushed back against that line of reasoning.
“Does he need to know, by hearing from news coverage, that there is an investigation about someone who was shot and left at the location?” she asked. “Or is it a reasonable inference to draw that when someone is injured by gunshot, that there will be an investigation?”
The prosecuting attorney asked Mabey to send the case to trial. He said there are grounds to support the obstruction charge.
A third attorney, Jim Bradshaw, was also in court Wednesday. He asked the judge to appoint Hayes’ three brothers, his son and his fiancée as victim representatives.
Bradshaw said that’s so the family can advocate for their deceased relative in court and communicate more with the Wasatch County Attorney’s Office.
“The acts that the court is talking about here today are related to that homicide – and it was a homicide; there’s no question about that,” he said. “They are victims.”
The other lawyers in the case didn’t support that request, saying Hayes’ relatives are not directly victims of the obstruction charge.
“There was no murder,” Deesing said. “Somebody died. That’s what it is. So it would be akin to you granting everybody in an apartment complex the right to be heard on a drug distribution case because they were tangentially affected by it. That’s not how it works.”
Mabey said she needs time to think about both motions. In the request for victim representatives, she said she wanted to ensure her decision is not driven by emotion.
She will issue a written ruling.
If the obstruction charge moves forward, the case will return to court Nov. 5 for arraignment.
