State v. Chrisman, 257 P.3d 1083

Defendant Thomas Joseph Chrisman was convicted in a Utah Court of Appeals memorandum decision of three counts of rape of a child, six counts of rape, and one count of forcible sodomy, all first-degree felonies.
The statute of limitations applied was Utah Code section 76-1-303.5, requiring commencement within four years after the offense was reported to law enforcement.
Defendant contends the victim’s half-sister told a police officer shortly after August 2001, more than four years before charges in May 2006, which should have triggered the limitations period.
The trial court held the statute of limitations had not begun to run based on the victim’s denial when questioned by the officer shortly after August 2001.
On appeal, the court noted defendant failed to marshal evidence and presumed the trial court’s factual finding; the victim testified she did not report the offense.
The court also addressed the admissibility of the victim’s half-sister testimony about other alleged acts; Doporto’s 404(b) framework had been superseded; the proper test is Nelson-Waggoner, but the claim was inadequately briefed, and the court declined to address it on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statute of limitations began to run on the rape-of-a-child counts.	Chrissman argues the half-sister’s report triggered the period.	Chrissman contends the report occurred more than four years before filing.	The court affirmed that the limitations issue was not triggered.
Whether the half-sister’s testimony was admissible as 404(b) bad acts evidence.	The testimony showed relevant bad acts against defendant.	Doporto framework applies? superseded; proper standard is Nelson-Waggoner.	Claim inadequately briefed; court declined to decide merits.

State v. Green, 108 P.3d 710 (Utah 2005) (requires marshaling of evidence to challenge factual findings)
State v. Doporto, 935 P.2d 484 (Utah 1997) (pre-1998 404(b) framework for bad acts evidence)
State v. Decorso, 993 P.2d 837 (Utah 1999) (post-1998 amendment governing 404(b) analysis)
State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 6 P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000) (current 404(b) test after amendment)
State v. Chavez-Espinoza, 186 P.3d 1023 (Utah 2008) (limits on challenging trial-court factual findings)
West Jordan City v. Goodman, 135 P.3d 874 (Utah 2006) (briefing and argument standards for appellate review)
Majestic Inv. Co. v. West Valley City, 818 P.2d 1311 (Utah Ct.App. 1991) (requires careful marshaling of trial-record evidence)