In State v. Morgan, 2001 UT 87, 34 P.3d 767, the Court determined that when potential abusive practices are involved, the presumption is that due process will bar refiling. Id. Therefore, "'fundamental fairness,' the touchstone of due process, precludes, without limitation, a prosecutor from seeking an unfair advantage over a defendant through forum shopping, repeated filings of groundless and improvident charges, or from withholding evidence." Id. However, the Court determined that when a prosecutor innocently miscalculates the quantum of evidence necessary to bind over a defendant, due process violations are not necessarily implicated when charges are refiled. Id. The Court therefore held that an innocent miscalculation is a subset of "other good cause" under the Brickey rule, allowing refiling, while emphasizing that the miscalculation must be innocent and not used for purposes which would violate due process rights of the defendant. Id. In sum, the Court said that "when potential abusive practices are involved, the presumption is that due process will bar refiling." Id. However, "when potential abusive practices are not involved, . . . there is no presumptive bar to refiling." Id. This is because " State v. Brickey does not . . . preclude refiling where a defendant's due process rights are not implicated." Id.