State v. Billingsley, 311 P.3d 995

Ms. Billingsley, an ISS aide, was involved with two 15-year-old students, M.M. and D.P., during and after school hours.
M.M. testified that Billingsley touched him in the car and performed oral sex after a detent ion; D.P. testified similarly and DNA linked seminal fluid to him.
The State charged Billingsley with one count of rape, three counts of forcible sodomy, and three counts of forcible sexual abuse, alleging lack of consent under Utah law.
The trial court granted a new trial based on evidentiary errors, including exclusion of a topless photo and other irregularities alleged to taint fair trial.
On appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed the new-trial order, holding the Rule 412 exclusion was proper and the other irregularities were harmless.
The court reaffirmed that the State need only prove enticement by the defendant under Utah law, not that victims were predisposed to sexual activity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 412 exclusion violated due process	Billingsley argued predisposition evidence was necessary to entrapment.	State contends enticement does not require predisposition proof.	No due process violation; enticement does not hinge on victim predisposition.
Whether 412 exclusion violated Confrontation Clause	Billingsley claims denial of cross-examining prior sexual knowledge violated confrontation.	State asserts 412 limits on evidence coexist with confrontation rights.	No Confrontation Clause violation; 412 and confrontation rights harmonize.
Whether trial errors were harmless cumulatively	Cumulative errors from mislabels and a challenged photo allegedly affected verdict.	Errors were innocuous or insufficient to prejudice verdict.	Harmless; no prejudice to deprive fair trial.
Whether the topless photo admission warranted arrest of judgment	Photo had probative value; its prominence could prejudice jurors.	Photo was minimally prejudicial and not dispositive.	Properly excluded; not prejudicial enough to warrant new trial.

State v. Gibson, 908 P.2d 352 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (enticing a teen requires focus on defendant's conduct, not victim's predisposition)
State v. Bundy, 589 P.2d 760 (Utah 1978) (grant/deny new trial discretion reviewed for abuse)
State v. Scieszka, 897 P.2d 1224 (Utah Ct.App. 1995) (forcible sodomy aims at protecting inexperienced victims)
State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1989) (evidence rules advisory notes related to Rule 412)
State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (standard for abuse of discretion in new-trial rulings)