State v. Dalton
2014 UT App 68
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Terrill Dalton led a religious group and exercised authority over members, endorsing "impressions" that directed sexual conduct (the "higher doctrine" of "giving seed").
- In 2005, Geody Harman acted on an impression to have sex with a 15‑year‑old church member (Victim) after Dalton approved; Victim later had sex with Harman and, within weeks, once with Dalton.
- Victim reported the abuse in 2009; Dalton was charged in 2010 with two counts of rape (one count as principal and one as an accomplice to Harman).
- At trial, the State presented testimony from Victim, Harman, and two other women describing Dalton’s sexual and religious coercion; the defense sought to portray Victim as motivated by drugs/money and called Victim’s sister (Sister) to testify that she did not initially believe Victim.
- On cross‑examination the prosecutor asked Sister why her view changed; she testified Dalton had asked her to pose nude. The court allowed the question, denied a mistrial motion, refused Dalton’s proposed mistake‑of‑fact instruction, permitted the State to amend the offense dates midtrial, and gave a modified Allen instruction; Dalton appeals.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dalton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admission of Sister’s cross‑examination testimony about nude‑picture request | Cross‑examination was proper because Dalton opened the door by eliciting Sister’s disbelief of Victim | Testimony was improper character/other‑acts evidence (Rules 404(b), 608) and prejudicial | Court affirmed: even if error, admission was harmless given strong other evidence and similar 404(b) testimony from other witnesses |
| 2. Denial of mistrial based on that testimony | Admission was rebuttal to defense‑opened topic and not prejudicial | Admission was inflammatory and prejudiced a fair trial | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; the testimony was a "tiny" part of the case and did not materially affect verdict |
| 3. Refusal to give mistake‑of‑fact jury instruction on accomplice rape | Instructions given adequately allowed jury to consider honest belief and mens rea; Marchet controls | Dalton requested an instruction that honest belief Victim consented negates culpable mental state | Court affirmed: jury instructions as a whole fairly informed law; mistake‑of‑fact unnecessary because mens rea covered |
| 4. Allowing amendment of information to change date range during trial | Amendment permissible if no new offense charged and defendant not prejudiced; Dalton had long notice of timeframe | Change prejudiced Dalton because counsel abandoned alibi preparation after earlier amendment | Court affirmed: no substantial prejudice—defendant had long notice and witnesses placed him in Utah during relevant time |
| 5. Use of modified Allen instruction (verdict‑urging) | Instruction was similar to Harry/ABA model, not coercive per se, and balanced majority/minority language | Instruction was coercive (timing and wording pressured holdouts) | Court affirmed: instruction not coercive per se; defendant failed to preserve coercive‑under‑the‑circumstances objection to timing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (discusses accomplice mens rea and awareness of substantial risk)
- State v. Marchet, 284 P.3d 668 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (refusal to give mistake‑of‑fact instruction upheld where instructions allowed jury to consider defense)
- State v. Harry, 189 P.3d 98 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (approves noncoercive modified Allen language and discusses coercion standards)
- State v. Gallup, 267 P.3d 289 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (trial court has broad evidentiary discretion)
- State v. Kohl, 999 P.2d 7 (Utah 2000) (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary rulings)