SB 299 amends Utah’s assault and aggravated assault statutes to create a limited exception for chokeholds used in certain athletic or training settings. The bill defines “chokehold” as a restraining hold applied around the neck with an arm, and then states that a chokehold does not constitute assault or aggravated assault when it is used as part of training for, or participation in, a practice or sport where chokeholds are a known and acceptable practice, such as martial arts, wrestling, or mixed martial arts, and both individuals are participating in that same activity.
Outside that narrow exception, the bill leaves the core assault and aggravated assault framework in place. It preserves existing misdemeanor and felony penalties, including enhanced penalties when serious bodily injury results, when a victim is pregnant and the actor knows it, or when conduct impedes breathing or circulation by applying pressure to the neck or obstructing the airway. The bill also makes technical and conforming changes and takes effect May 7, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends Utah Code sections 76-5-102 and 76-5-103 by adding a statutory definition of chokehold and carving out an affirmative non-application rule for certain sports and training contexts. In practical terms, it narrows the reach of assault and aggravated assault liability for regulated athletic activities while leaving criminal exposure intact for non-consensual or otherwise unlawful chokehold use. The bill does not appropriate money and does not create new offenses; it modifies how existing assault statutes apply to specific conduct and participants.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support at each recorded stage, including favorable committee recommendations and unanimous floor votes in the Senate, followed by a favorable House committee recommendation. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment appears broadly supportive and noncontroversial. The pattern of votes suggests legislators viewed the measure as a targeted clarification rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
No explicit opposition appears in the provided record, and there are no committee transcript snippets indicating debate. The main policy issue inherent in the bill is the balance between public safety concerns around chokeholds and the desire to exempt legitimate sports and training practices. Any potential contention would likely center on whether the exception is drawn narrowly enough to prevent misuse outside sanctioned activities, but the recorded votes do not show that concern rising to active resistance.