State v. Cuttler
2015 UT 95
| Utah | 2015Background
- Defendant James Cuttler was charged with multiple first-degree child-sex offenses for alleged abuse of his seven-year-old daughter K.C. in 2012.
- The State sought to admit prior acts evidence under Utah R. Evid. 404(c) that Cuttler sexually abused two older daughters in 1984–85 to show propensity.
- The district court found the prior acts fit Rule 404(c) but excluded them under Rule 403 after applying the Shickles factors, concluding prejudice substantially outweighed probative value.
- The State obtained interlocutory review; the Supreme Court limited review to whether the correct legal standard governed the Rule 403 balancing for 404(c) evidence and whether the district court properly applied it.
- The Utah Supreme Court held the district court abused its discretion: courts must apply the plain text of Rule 403 (not rigidly the Shickles factors), and the exclusion here was unreasonable given strong similarities and limited risk of unfair prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cuttler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court applied correct legal standard under Rule 403 when excluding 404(c) evidence | Court should apply Rule 403 textual balancing; Shickles factors may inform but not control | Exclusion proper because prior acts are highly prejudicial and long ago | Court: District court applied wrong standard by exclusively applying Shickles; Rule 403 text controls; reversed |
| Whether the prior-child-molestation evidence was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Evidence probative (strong similarities, familial pattern); prejudice can be limited by restricting inflammatory details | Admission would inflame jury and substitute propensity for proof of elements | Court: Probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admission appropriate with limits on violent-detail evidence |
| Whether the 27-year time gap and differences (force) render evidence inadmissible | Time gap diminished given incarceration and intergenerational opportunity; similarities (relationship, ages, specific sexual acts, nickname) are strong | Time gap and evidence of force in earlier acts reduce probative value and increase prejudice | Court: Time gap not dispositive in intergenerational context; similarities prevail; exclusion unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291 (Utah 1988) (articulates factors commonly used when evaluating prior-bad-acts evidence)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (holds courts must follow Rule 403 text rather than be bound to Shickles factors)
- United States v. Mann, 193 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 1999) (admitted prior child-molestation evidence where victims were relatives of similar ages and acts were similar)
- State v. Lintzen, 347 P.3d 433 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (explains Rule 404(c) permits propensity evidence in child-molestation cases)