State v. Fredrick, 450 P.3d 1154

Background

Victim K.R. was cared for by Blane Fredrick from about age 1 to 9; she reported sexual touching beginning around age 7 and described an instance using a doll and later to a recorded Children’s Justice Center (CJC) interview at age 9.
A police detective later interviewed Fredrick at the station; Fredrick voluntarily drove there, kept his personal effects, was told he was not under arrest, and after a ~2-hour interview admitted to touching K.R. once; Detective did not fully recite Miranda warnings (omitted that statements could be used in court) and arrested Fredrick at the interview’s end.
The Attorney General produced electronic communications showing Fredrick describing sexual arousal involving children; the State sought to introduce some of this Electronic Evidence at trial under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) and 404(c).
Pretrial motions: Fredrick moved to exclude the CJC interview (Ur. R. Crim. P. 15.5 and Utah R. Evid. 807), to suppress the police interview (Miranda/custody), and to exclude Electronic Evidence (Utah R. Evid. 403). The court admitted the CJC interview, denied suppression of the police interview, and allowed 14 pieces of Electronic Evidence (7 were actually used at trial).
Jury convicted Fredrick on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child; on appeal he challenged (1) admission of the CJC interview, (2) denial of suppression of the police interview, and (3) admission of Electronic Evidence under rule 404(c)/403. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Fredrick's Argument	Held
Admissibility of CJC recorded interview under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5 (age issue)	The CJC interview was admissible under rule 15.5 as recorded prior-victim statement	The interview should be excluded because victim was 14 at trial and rule 15.5 applies only when victim is <14 at trial	Unpreserved: Fredrick raised the age point post-trial after learning victim’s age at trial; appellate court declined to consider it (no plain-error/exceptional-circumstances argued).
Adequacy of trial-court findings on reliability/trustworthiness of CJC interview under rule 15.5(a)(8)	The court properly found the interview reliable and admissible	The court failed to make sufficiently specific findings about accuracy/reliability	Denied: Appellant failed to include transcript/record of ruling on appeal; court presumes regularity and rejects claim for lack of record.
Suppression of police interview (Miranda/custodial interrogation)	Not custodial until arrest at interview’s end; warnings not required until custody	Interview was custodial and Miranda warnings were incomplete (omitted that statements could be used in court)	Denied: Totality of circumstances (voluntary station visit, retained effects, unlocked door, casual officer attire, explicit “not under arrest” and permission to stop questioning) shows no custody; Miranda exclusion not required.
Admission of Electronic Evidence (communications about other molestations) under Utah R. Evid. 404(c) and rule 403	Evidence of other child molestation is admissible under 404(c); must still survive rule 403 but propensity is the reason for admission	Evidence was irrelevant or overwhelmingly prejudicial and should have been excluded under rule 402/403	Denied: Evidence was relevant as propensity evidence under 404(c); propensity value isn’t a 403 prejudice factor—Fredrick pointed to no other unfair prejudice (cumulative/confusing) or that it should have been sanitized—trial court did not abuse discretion.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (custody inquiry is objective totality-of-circumstances test)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (custody inquiry is objective; subjective beliefs of parties irrelevant)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (stationhouse questioning not automatically custodial)
State v. Fullerton, 428 P.3d 1052 (Utah 2018) (Miranda/custody standard applied; similar non-custodial stationhouse interview)
State v. Cuttler, 367 P.3d 981 (Utah 2015) (rule 404(c) admits prior child-molestation acts but such evidence remains subject to rule 403)
State v. Ring, 424 P.3d 845 (Utah 2018) (rule 403 analysis applies to 404(c) evidence; propensity itself is not automatically prejudicial)
Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983) (Carner factors historically used in custody analysis; now part of totality assessment)
State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291 (Utah 1988) (earlier Shickles factors for assessing prejudice; later limited by subsequent authority)