$20,000 lets sex convict avoid jail — for now

AMERICAN FORK — A chiropractor convicted of sexually touching a former employee can pay $20,000 for a temporary stay-out-of-jail privilege until his sentencing.

Grant Hildreth, 45, was convicted by a jury in March of two counts of forcible sex abuse for allegedly fondling the genital area of a former secretary during what he claims was a requested medical procedure.

But because of a scheduling miscommunication, neither he nor his attorney appeared in 4th District Court in American Fork on Friday for sentencing, and the court issued a nonbailable warrant for his arrest.

After late Friday afternoon phone calls, clarifying the scheduling confusion between the attorneys, the court recalled the warrant and set a hearing for Monday to determine Hildreth's status.

"We've had a chance to discuss between ourselves and feel that it is ... appropriate to have the defendant post bond with the court in the amount of $20,000 cash or bond," prosecutor Alex Ludlow told Judge David Mortensen Monday.

The $20,000 amount was agreed upon Monday after Ludlow agreed to stipulate that Hildreth was not a flight risk. Hildreth has until May 12 to pay the $20,000 in cash or bond.

"Just so we're all clear, if the bail is not posted at that time and at that date, a warrant will issue at that time. Is that clear?" Mortensen asked.

Both sides indicated they understood.

"We want everyone to know he is not a flight risk," said defense attorney Carolyn Howard after the hearing. "Friday was a scheduling error. He has been entirely compliant."

Howard emphasized that Hildreth has six children and has no intention to flee.

She also insisted that they believe Hildreth would not have been convicted had the court agreed to sever the counts. Hildreth was originally charged with six felonies of forcible sex abuse related to four different women.

"It was guilt by association," Howard said. She said after the jury listened to four different women testify about alleged abuse, they would feel the need to convict him of something, which is what she believes they did.

She has filed a motion to appeal the court's refusal to sever the case, which will be heard by the Utah Court of Appeals.

However, Ludlow doesn't believe the court's ruling was wrong.

"The jury had solid evidence," he said. "(Plus) even had it been severed, the state would have been able to bring in each of the witnesses to all of the trials to (show a) pattern of misconduct."

But Howard and Hildreth dispute there was a pattern of misconduct.

"The state argues a pattern, but if there was a pattern, the jury would have convicted him on all (counts)," she said. "But they didn't."

Hildreth will be in court again May 16 when Howard will present another motion, arguing that she believes the state didn't meet their burden at trial.

---

E-mail: sisraelsen@desnews.com