State v. Burke
2011 UT App 168
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Burke was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, dealing in material harmful to a minor, and forcible sexual abuse.
- The offenses arose from a single night involving Burke, a high school reunion, and three victims: Aunt (his friend's sister) and Child (the four-year-old daughter).
- The events included Burke groping Aunt, ordering pay-per-view porn, and later repeatedly watching pornography while Child was in the house.
- Child later testified Burke made her touch his penis after exposing her to a pornographic movie and during the same night, while Aunt observed Burke’s misconduct.
- The trial court denied severance for joinder of Aunt and Child offenses, and Burke challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions on appeal.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding joinder proper, 404(b) evidence admissible, testimony properly admitted under 403, and no reversible error in other challenged rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of joined offenses was proper | Burke argues denial of severance prejudiced fair trial | Burke contends joinder created prejudice by improper evidence spillover | Joinder proper; no reversible prejudice shown |
| Admissibility of other acts under Rule 404(b) | State shows need and motive to arouse sexual desire; acts were related | Joinder caused unfair prejudice; 404(b) notice issues | Evidence admissible under 404(b) for proper, noncharacter purposes; not unduly prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Child's testimony under Rule 403 | Testimony probative as sole witness; not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Testimony highly prejudicial due to age and suggestibility | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible under 403 |
| Admission of Child's prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) | Statements rebut claimed recent fabrication/improper influence | Statements were postmotive; improper to admit | Properly admitted to rebut alleged improper influence; not postmotive under record |
| Voluntary intoxication instruction | Defendant could have defense if intoxication negated specific intent | Evidence insufficient to negate specific intent; no instruction needed | No voluntary intoxication instruction required; evidence insufficient to negate intent |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Balfour, 198 P.3d 471 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (joinder not prejudicial; discretion favored admission)
- State v. Downs, 44 P.3d 794 (Utah Supreme Court 2002) (rule 403 abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Hollen, 44 P.3d 794 (Utah Supreme Court 2002) (abuse of discretion in expert testimony admissibility)
- State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (rule 404(b) and appellate review standards)
- State v. Torres, 69 P.3d 314 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (evidence foundation/authentication reviewed for abuse of discretion)