I think the defendant outfitter's ship is sunk. He is not alleging that they unknowingly chased the wounded buck across the border. This would seem to be the more difficult defense for prosecution to overcome. Prosecutors must already have solid proof Hatch did know where they were. Any outfitter should know there is no problem pursuing wounded game into another jurisdiction ... as long as that jurisdiction's authorities have been contacted first. However, the hunter must be able to prove the animal was in fact wounded in the other jurisdiction. Sounds like that is a problem for Mr. Hatch. Presumably witnesses only heard one shot fired. How many holes were in the carcass? This is likely another problem for the defendants. If there's only evidence of one shot hitting the animal, it likely will be difficult to prove it wandered any distance. The location of the wound(s) may indicate it died instantly or too quickly to have run across the border into Utah. I presume Hatch knew the enemy outfitter was also operating in the vicinity. Should have kept his ducks in a row. Not contacting the Utah authorities before or, more importantly, after killing the buck was the mistake that will get him busted. No excuse for that. Maybe gut the buck if the weather is warm, but do nothing else till Utah LE is notified. Instead, he proceeds to quarter it up to remove evidence as quickly as possible. Only one reason for that. They poached the deer.