The criminal case developed months after a June collision as investigators obtained a warrant and examined the driver’s cellphone activity.
LEVAN, Utah — A fatal three-vehicle crash in a construction zone has become a felony automobile homicide case built partly on digital evidence after Utah investigators obtained a warrant for a driver’s cellphone and found activity shortly before the collision.
Christine Chao, 44, of Rosemead, California, was charged Tuesday in 4th District Court after the June 12 crash on northbound Interstate 15 in Juab County. Prosecutors allege Chao was using a wireless communication device before her vehicle struck slower traffic, beginning a chain-reaction collision that killed 66-year-old Scott LaVar Lichfield of Fillmore.
The investigation began with the physical evidence at the crash scene. Traffic had slowed near a construction area when Chao’s vehicle struck the rear of another vehicle, according to charging documents. That vehicle was pushed into a third, and all three left the roadway. Investigators said they found no brake marks indicating Chao had slowed before the impact.
Authorities then turned to Chao’s phone. Troopers seized the device and obtained a search warrant before examining its contents. Court documents say investigators found that the phone had accessed a pornography website less than two minutes before the collision. That finding became part of the evidence prosecutors cited when they filed the criminal charge in October.
The distinction between accessing a website shortly before the crash and establishing exactly what a driver was doing at the instant of impact could become important as the case moves through court. Publicly reported charging information describes the phone activity and its timing, but it does not independently establish every detail of how the device was being used when the vehicles collided.
Utah law provides for an automobile homicide charge when prosecutors allege a person negligently operated a moving vehicle while using a wireless communication device in violation of state law and caused another person’s death. The offense can be treated as a second-degree felony when prosecutors allege the driving amounted to criminal negligence. Chao has not been convicted, and those allegations remain for the court to resolve.
Charging documents also state that Chao told officers after the collision that she was at fault. Prosecutors are therefore relying on several categories of evidence described in the public record: the sequence of the crash, the absence of visible braking marks, Chao’s reported statement to officers and data obtained from her cellphone through a warrant.
The filing came more than four months after Lichfield’s death, illustrating how a traffic investigation can continue well beyond the initial crash response when authorities seek electronic evidence and evaluate whether the facts support criminal charges. Lichfield was a passenger in the vehicle struck from behind and was critically injured before he died.
Chao is scheduled to appear in court Nov. 17. The proceeding will move the case from the investigative and charging stage into the judicial process, where the evidence described by prosecutors can be challenged and the state will bear the burden of proving the charge.
Author note: Last updated October 22, 2026.