State v. Beverly
2018 UT 60
| Utah | 2018Background
- Mark Beverly (defendant) was convicted of rape and forcible sexual abuse of his wife, S.B.; he claimed the intercourse was consensual.
- On the night in question Beverly, angry and accusing S.B. of cheating, entered her room, forced sexual contact while she cried and said “no” multiple times; S.B. called 911 after he fell asleep.
- Forensic testing: a major DNA profile in the rape-kit matched Beverly; a minor profile was present but inconclusive as to whether it came from another male or was victim cells.
- At a preliminary hearing S.B. described prior domestic-violence incidents (two choking incidents and past death threats); the prosecution sought and the court admitted that history to explain S.B.’s state of mind.
- During voir dire the trial judge commented negatively about the O.J. Simpson trial; Beverly’s counsel did not object. Beverly appealed, raising preservation, evidentiary (Rules 412, 403, 404(b)) and cumulative-error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Beverly's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge's voir dire comments (O.J. Simpson) — preservation and constitutional impartial-jury claim | Counsel should have objected; judge’s comments were prejudicial and violated impartial jury/due process | Argument not preserved; no exception applies; counsel may have strategically declined to object; no prejudice shown | Not reviewed on merits: preserved-error exceptions fail (ineffective assistance, plain error, exceptional circumstances); no prejudice shown so conviction affirmed |
| Use of minor DNA profile to suggest another sexual partner — Rule 412 and Rule 403 | Minor-profile evidence should be admissible to impeach S.B. (show she lied about cheating) or to show alternate source of injuries | Use to impeach sexual history barred by Rule 412; even if Rule 412(b)(1) source exception could apply, evidence is speculative and properly excluded under Rule 403 as more prejudicial than probative | Trial court did not abuse discretion: impeachment use barred by Rule 412; exclusion also proper under Rule 403 (low probative value, high prejudice) |
| Admission of prior domestic violence (404(b)) and limits on cross-examination | Admission was improper character evidence; limiting cross-exam of a 1993 incident curtailed defense | Prior choking/threat evidence admitted for non-propensity purpose—victim’s fear/state of mind—relevant; cross-exam limits reasonable given remoteness and lack of violent facts for New Year’s Eve 1993 incident | Admission upheld: evidence had a plausible non-propensity purpose and probative value outweighed prejudice; court did not abuse discretion limiting cross-exam |
| Cumulative error | Combined effect of errors requires reversal | Only one potential error exists and it caused no Strickland-level prejudice; other rulings proper | Cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable because only a single potential error alleged and it did not undermine confidence in verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah 2001) (Rule 412 source-evidence may be considered but still subject to Rule 403 balancing)
- State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (Rule 412/403 framework and cross-examination discretion)
- State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation rule and exceptions: ineffective assistance, plain error, exceptional circumstances)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective-assistance prejudice standard; reasonable probability test)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (cumulative-error reversal standard)