State v. Carrell
414 P.3d 1030
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant John Carrell was a school-bus driver for children with special needs; two five-year-old girls (C.B. and Z.B.) rode his routes at different times of day. Video cameras on the bus recorded many interactions.
- District policy limited physical contact; drivers could help buckle/unbuckle but should not initiate hugs or other contact. Carrell often took children out of their harnesses last and spent extra time with C.B. and Z.B.
- Video showed repeated close contact: C.B. seated on/near Carrell (lap or between legs), Carrell’s hands near or on her lower body (including moments appearing on her buttocks and once under her skirt), nuzzling/kissing, and apparent smelling/licking of fingers. Video showed Carrell placing his hand on Z.B.’s clothed genitals and lifting her by the crotch while she struggled.
- C.B. later told her father and, after therapy, a detective that Carrell touched her “peepee” daily; Z.B. was nonverbal but her father reported behavior changes and the State relied on video.
- Carrell was charged with 33 counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child (touching genitalia/buttocks or otherwise taking indecent liberties, with intent to arouse or gratify, and occupying a position of special trust). The jury convicted on 19 counts.
- On appeal Carrell argued (1) certain jury-instruction language ("buttocks" and "indecent liberties") was unsupported by the evidence, (2) mental-state instructions could confuse which mens rea applied to which element, and (3) insufficient evidence supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to instruct on "indecent liberties" | Video plus testimony showed conduct that, even if not always a clear statutory "touching," could reasonably be found to be of the same gravity as touching genitals/buttocks | No non-touching conduct rose to the level of "indecent liberties"; video was too inconclusive to support that theory | The evidence (video + testimony) supported giving the "indecent liberties" instruction; upheld |
| Inclusion of "buttocks" in instruction for C.B. | Video footage and testimonial evidence showed contact at or near C.B.’s buttocks (including hand under skirt) | C.B. testified only about touching of her "peepee," so no evidence supported buttocks language | Video supported a reasonable inference of buttocks contact; inclusion was proper |
| Mens rea instruction structure (separate definitions of "knowingly"/"intentionally") | Model instructions correctly stated law and, read as a whole, required both the act (knowingly/intentionally) and the sexual-intent element | Jury might be confused which intent applied to which element; instruction should tie mens rea to each element explicitly | No error; instructions followed MUJI and, in context, conveyed that the act required knowingly/intentionally and the act must have been done with intent to arouse/gratify |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction (directed verdict) | Video corroborated victims, showed repeated touching/close contact, and supported inference of sexual intent | Evidence was inconclusive; testimony was inconsistent and videotape did not always show hands on genitals; insufficient to prove intent to arouse/gratify | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable jury could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheves v. Williams, 993 P.2d 191 (Utah 1999) (standard of review for jury instructions).
- State v. Tinoco, 860 P.2d 988 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (harmless-error/reversal standard for instruction errors).
- State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (clarifies mens rea application where different elements have distinct mental-state requirements).
- State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (limited circumstances permitting appellate courts to reject witness testimony as inherently improbable).
- State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (application of Robbins standards).
- State v. Lomu, 321 P.3d 235 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (permitting inferences from combined testimonial and video evidence).
- State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (intent to gratify may be inferred from touching a child’s genitals).