D.M. v. State
310 P.3d 741
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- D.M. appeals a juvenile court adjudication of delinquency on one count of sexual abuse of a child (Allegation III), a second‑degree felony if charged as an adult.
- Allegation III originally charged sodomy on a child based on oral-genital contact with an 11‑year‑old by a 9‑year‑old during a 2009 sleepover.
- Evidence at trial showed D.M. pulled down T.L.’s pants and touched his testicles under a futon; trial resumed after a six‑week amendment process.
- After a midtrial dispute, the court amended Allegation III to sexual abuse of a child, which does not require oral‑genital contact.
- D.M. argued the amendment and the failure to prove oral‑genital contact required dismissal of Allegation III; the court denied dismissal and adjudicated the amended charge.
- On appeal, D.M. challenges sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the pretrial and midtrial amendments, while the State concedes the lack of direct evidence of sexual intent but argues inferences support intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in not dismissing Allegation III for lack of oral-genital contact evidence | D.M. argues no prima facie case for sodomy, and the amendment was improper. | State could amend to sexual abuse of a child, removing the oral-genital element. | No error; amendment to sexual abuse of a child valid and supported by record. |
| Whether the amendment to Allegation III affected the effectiveness of the motion to dismiss | Argument not clearly preserved; seeks relief based on original charge. | Amendment cured the defect and mooted the motion to dismiss. | Amendment rendered the motion to dismiss moot; no reversal for that basis. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove sexual intent for sexual abuse of a child | No direct evidence of intent; plain error as to lack of trustworthiness. | Intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances; no plain error. | Sufficient inference supported intent; not plain error. |
| Whether the court erred by treating the amended Allegation III as a lesser included offense of sodomy | Error in characterizing as lesser included without proper grounds. | Amendment already effectively charged sexual abuse of a child; mislabeling at one stage does not affect result. | No reversal; the adjudication remains valid under the amended allegation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781 (Utah 1992) (prima facie case elements required with believable evidence)
- State v. Smith, 675 P.2d 521 (Utah 1983) (definition of prima facie case and review standard)
- State v. Spainhower, 988 P.2d 452 (Utah App. 1999) (review of denial of motion to dismiss)
- In re K.O., 238 P.3d 59 (Utah App. 2010) (appellate review of juvenile court inferences and weight of evidence)
- State v. Bhag Singh, 267 P.3d 281 (Utah App. 2011) (inference of sexual intent from conduct)
- State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah Ct.App. 1997) (inferring sexual intent from actions)
- Robertson, 122 P.3d 895 (Utah App. 2005) (intent inferred from conduct and attendant circumstances)
- In re B.R., 171 P.3d 435 (Utah 2007) (standard for appellate deference to juvenile court findings)