State v. Hood
2018 UT App 236
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Howard Wayne Hood and W.B. met online in 2013; W.B. was an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and believed Hood was as well. Hood later told W.B. he had been excommunicated and wanted to return to the church; their relationship continued amid repeated breakups and sexual activity.
- W.B. testified that Hood manipulated her into sexual acts contrary to her religious beliefs and that, on one occasion after she fell asleep, Hood anally and vaginally penetrated her against her expressed refusals. Hood contested that the sexual encounters were consensual.
- The State charged Hood with rape and forcible sodomy. At trial the State introduced testimony that Hood had been excommunicated and sought to rejoin the church; the reasons for the excommunication were not disclosed.
- Hood moved to exclude testimony about the excommunication under Utah Rule of Evidence 404(b); the district court allowed testimony that Hood had been excommunicated, finding it central to the relationship narrative.
- The jury convicted Hood; on appeal he argued admission of the excommunication evidence was improper other-act evidence and unfairly prejudicial. The Court of Appeals analyzed whether rule 404(b) applied and performed the 404(b)/402/403 balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of Hood's excommunication is subject to Rule 404(b) | Excommunication is status/intrinsic to the relationship and not an "other act"; evidence was offered to show the statement was made and to explain relationship dynamics | Evidence of excommunication implies a prior bad act and so is other-act evidence subject to Rule 404(b) | Court: Rule 404(b) applies because, in context, excommunication strongly implied a prior wrongdoing related to charged sexual misconduct |
| Whether the excommunication evidence was offered for a proper non-propensity purpose | It was offered to explain why W.B. remained involved with Hood (effect on victim) and to provide narrative/context | It was really offered to show propensity and moral character, prejudicing the jury | Court: The State articulated a proper non-propensity purpose (relationship dynamics; effect on victim), so admissible in principle |
| Whether the evidence was relevant under Rule 402 | Evidence of Hood’s status and requests to rejoin church made W.B.’s continued contact more probable and thus relevant to credibility/consent | Relevance alone does not cure Rule 404(b) concerns | Court: Evidence was relevant to credibility/consent (low bar met) |
| Whether probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403 | State argued no less-prejudicial alternative; narrative required disclosure of excommunication | Hood proposed admitting only that he was a former member seeking to rejoin (less prejudicial) and objected to revealing excommunication | Court: Probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; admission was an abuse of discretion and harmful, requiring reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (Rule 404(b) framework and permissible non-propensity purposes)
- State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (need to balance proper and improper inferences from other-act evidence)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (probative value may be reduced by available less-prejudicial alternatives)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (404(b) applies only to evidence extrinsic to charged crimes)
- State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (three-part test: proper purpose, relevance, 403 balancing)