Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial in a territorial court. The case arose when a man named Hopt was charged with assault with intent to commit murder in the Territory of Utah. Hopt argued that he was entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the territories, and that the right to a jury trial is a matter of local law. The Court also held that the territorial legislature had the power to provide for jury trials in criminal cases, and that the territorial court had the power to grant jury trials in such cases. The Court concluded that Hopt was not entitled to a jury trial in the territorial court. The decision established that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the territories, and that the right to a jury trial is a matter of local law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah, arguing that a state court had no authority to try an accused for murder if he was not present within its jurisdiction at the time of commission. He argued that this case should be decided on constitutional grounds and not by precedent or analogy as it involved fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. Justice Field noted that while states have broad powers over their own citizens, they do not possess any power over those who are outside their boundaries and thus cannot subject them to criminal prosecution without violating due process protections under both federal and state constitutions. Furthermore, he argued that even if a person is found guilty in absentia, such conviction would still be invalid since it violates basic principles of justice which require personal presence before trial so as to ensure fair proceedings with full opportunity for defense against charges brought against him/her. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his position that states lack authority to prosecute persons who were out-of-state when alleged crimes occurred; therefore convictions obtained through such means must be overturned regardless whether there exists sufficient evidence or otherwise valid legal basis for conviction itself.