In re D.M. (D.M. v. State)
2013 UT App 220
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- D.M. appeals from a juvenile court adjudicating him delinquent on sexual abuse of a child (Allegation III) and sodomy on a child (Allegation IV).
- Allegation III began as sodomy on a child; trial testimony described a sleepover incident where T.I. testified to under-futon touching and pants-down conduct.
- The State amended Allegation III to sexual abuse of a child after trial began, and D.M. was granted a continuance to prepare defenses.
- D.M. moved to dismiss Allegation III for lack of evidence of oral-genital contact; the court denied dismissal and amended the allegation.
- Trial resumed after about six weeks; the court adjudicated D.M. delinquent on both amended Allegation III and Allegation IV.
- On appeal, D.M. contends the amendment and process deprived him of fair notice and there was insufficient proof of sexual intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the dismissal motion properly denied? | D.M. argues failure to prove oral-genital contact required dismissal. | State contends amendment to sexual abuse of a child cured the defect. | Yes; amendment permitted and dismissal unnecessary. |
| Was the amendment to Allegation III proper? | D.M. contends amendment charged a new offense improperly. | State argues amendment to sexual abuse of a child was permissible. | Proper amendment to charge sexual abuse of a child. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of intent to sexually abuse a child? | No direct proof of sexual intent; could be plain error. | Intent can be inferred from conduct and circumstances. | Evidence supported inferred sexual intent; no plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781 (Utah 1992) (prima facie case requires believable evidence of all elements)
- State v. Spainhower, 988 P.2d 452 (Utah App. 1999) (denotes standard for motions to dismiss)
- State v. Valdez, 140 P.3d 1219 (Utah 2006) (forfeiture/waiver principles for late appellate challenges)
- State v. Robertson, 122 P.3d 895 (Utah App. 2005) (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
- State v. Bhag Singh, 267 P.3d 281 (Utah App. 2011) (inferring intent in sexual-offense contexts)
- State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah App. 1997) (guarantees of inference in determining sexual intent)