State v. Barney
2018 UT App 159
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Victim got into Barney’s truck despite an active protective order; Barney immediately assaulted her, drove to a rural road where the truck ran out of gas, held a knife to her throat, threatened torture and death, and held her overnight before returning her home.
- Victim did not report the incident (the Kidnapping Incident) until about two months later.
- The State charged Barney with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and violating a protective order.
- The State sought admission of four other-acts involving Victim: (1) Vehicular Assault (Barney drove his truck at Victim), (2) Strangulation (pinned her neck against a wall), (3) Protective Order violation (letters from jail), and (4) Moving Vehicle Incident (post‑kidnapping speeding/grabbing while Victim tried to jump).
- Trial court initially excluded the evidence but admitted the four incidents on rebuttal to explain Victim’s state of mind (fear) and, for the Moving Vehicle Incident, modus operandi/reaction; jury convicted Barney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) | State: other-acts show Victim’s fear/state of mind explaining failure to flee or delay in reporting | Barney: evidence was offered only to show propensity for violence, not a proper noncharacter purpose | Admitted — court found a plausible, avowed noncharacter purpose (Victim’s state of mind/fear) |
| Relevance (Utah R. Evid. 401–402) | State: prior and subsequent acts made Victim’s fear and conduct more probable | Barney: acts were not sufficiently probative of Victim’s state of mind or resistance | Relevant — even slight probative value satisfied; evidence tended to explain Victim’s conduct |
| Prejudice (Utah R. Evid. 403) | State: probative value of explaining Victim’s fear outweighed any undue prejudice; limiting instruction given | Barney: prior‑bad‑acts would unfairly prejudice jury to convict on propensity | Not unduly prejudicial — distinctness of acts, greater severity of charged conduct, and limiting instruction mitigated unfair prejudice |
| Use of post‑incident act (Moving Vehicle Incident occurred after charged crime but before report) | State: other acts need not be prior to be admissible; it explained why Victim delayed reporting | Barney: post‑incident evidence is improper because not prior conduct | Admissible — Rule 404(b) covers “other” acts and courts routinely admit subsequent acts when relevant to noncharacter purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (404(b) permits other-acts to show noncharacter purposes like victim’s state of mind; appellate review is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Bates, 784 P.2d 1126 (Utah 1989) (other-acts admissible to show victim’s fear and explain delay in reporting)
- State v. Harter, 155 P.3d 116 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (victim’s state of mind is a proper noncharacter purpose)
- State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (prior balancing approach referenced; later refined by Thornton)
- State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116 (Utah 2018) (discussion of 404(b) and prior‑act framing)
- State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (comparative severity of charged conduct and other-acts can inform prejudice analysis)
- State v. Trujillo, 400 P.3d 1213 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (limiting instruction mitigates prejudice from other-acts evidence)
- State v. Cuttler, 367 P.3d 981 (Utah 2015) (rejecting older standards for undue prejudice assessment)