State v. Butt
284 P.3d 605
Utah2012Background
- Butt, incarcerated for theft-related charges, mailed two letters with drawings to his family from jail.
- First letter to his wife contained a nude drawing of Butt, with a text implying a message to his five-year-old daughter S.B.; guard intercepted.
- Second letter also to his wife contained another nude drawing involving Butt and S.B.; guard intercepted and reported.
- Deputy Freestone discussed the drawings with Butt; Butt admitted the first drawing was a joke; described the second as a depiction of a game with his daughter.
- Deputies later confirmed ages of Butt's children; Miranda warnings were not given during those age-questions.
- Butt was charged with two counts of distributing harmful material to a minor; he testified the drawings were for his daughter and described the intended context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Miranda warranted for custodial interrogation? | Butt was in custody; interrogation required Miranda warnings. | Not in custody; short, non-coercive prompts; Miranda not required. | Not in custody; Miranda warnings not required. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove distribution to a minor? | The drawings were intended for his daughter; he distributed to a minor via letter. | No direct transfer to the daughter; wife reviewed first; insufficient to prove distribution. | Sufficient evidence to support distribution. |
| Is the material “harmful to minors” as a matter of law? | The jury can determine harmfulness; drawings meet statutory criteria. | No expert proof; material not necessarily harmful; challenge to jury’s conclusion. | Jury determination of harm endorsed; evidence falls within statute. |
| Did the jury apply the correct community standard for harm? | Jurors apply contemporary community standards; no error in standard. | Instruction omitted hard-core references; potential misapplication. | Defendant waived challenge; no reversal for standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (three-part obscenity test for material's pornographic nature)
- Taylor, State v., 664 P.2d 439 (Utah 1983) (contemporary community standards govern 'harmful to minors' analysis)
- Howes v. Fields, 132 S. Ct. 1181 (2012) (custody and interrogation factors for Miranda custody analysis)
- Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1978) (on-scene questioning and custody considerations for inmates)
- United States v. Melancon, 662 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2011) (prisoner interrogation and custody considerations)
- United States v. Scalf, 725 F.2d 1272 (10th Cir. 1984) (factors in determining custodial interrogation in prison context)