In State v. Hernandez, the Utah Supreme Court held that Class A misdemeanors, i.e., those with at least 6 month sentences, required a preliminary hearing. As one would think, the prosecutorial community was not happy about the decision, and it is likely to have a financial impact. For those not in the criminal law world, what is interesting about the decision is that it is one place the Court has taken the originalism announced some years ago seriously, actually made a decision based on the considerations it has said are the determinative considerations. Set aside the advisability of originalism, it is a good thing I think for the Court to adhere to the standards it has set.
The issue was the import of article I section 13 (yes, in Utah they are lower case) which provides that "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecute by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information after examination and commitment by a magistrate, unless the examination be waived by the accused with the consent of the State, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment." Is a misdemeanor punishable by six moths or more in jail under the section or not? Court does what it has said it should do, namely look first at the original meaning of the provision, i.e., when adopted. (Utah also has a fairly strong plain meaning approach to interpretation as well, so it is really what was the plain meaning then, if it can be found.) The real fight between the State and SL Defenders office was what was intended by the phrase "offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment." The State said that meant the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, because the State of Utah was not prior to adoption and so the State did not prosecute anything "heretofore". (No really, that is the essence of the argument.) The SLD says that the phrase refers to Territorial law, and under Territorial law, a misdemeanor with 6 month sentence or longer required an indictment. The rest just falls out.
There is one other aspect to note -- it may be that the paucity of decisions actually using originalism of some sort is due to the reluctance of lawyers to make the arguments. The record of the Constitutional convention is pretty meager. Still, a good piece of work.