State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35

Victim (pseudonym Beth) was assaulted on a couch in her roommate Rachel’s apartment by two men, John Atem Jok and David Akok; Beth reported digital penetration by Jok and rape by Akok.
Beth reported the assaults to her roommate and police, underwent a hospital exam that showed hymenal bruising, vaginal lacerations, and redness consistent with non‑consensual intercourse, and the examining nurse found she was coherent and not intoxicated.
At the first trial (bench trial following a jury mistrial record), both men were convicted; the court of appeals reversed for prosecutorial error and remanded; on remand the State proceeded to a bench trial based on the prior record before the same judge.
Jok did not renew a directed‑verdict motion at the bench trial and did not expressly invoke an “inherent improbability” objection; the trial court found him guilty on two counts of sexual battery.
On appeal to the Utah Supreme Court Jok argued Beth’s testimony was inherently improbable (material inconsistencies, patent falsehoods, lack of corroboration); the State argued Jok failed to preserve that claim under State v. Holgate.
The Supreme Court addressed two questions: (1) whether a sufficiency/inherent improbability claim must be specifically raised at a bench trial to preserve it for appeal, and (2) whether Beth’s testimony was too inherently improbable to support conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sufficiency/inherent‑improbability challenge must be specifically raised at a bench trial to preserve it for appeal	Holgate requires a defendant to raise sufficiency at trial to preserve the issue	A bench trial is governed by Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a); the judge as factfinder necessarily considers sufficiency so no specific motion is required	Rule 52(a) controls for bench trials; specific motion not required and the claim was preserved — bench trials effectively preserve sufficiency challenges
Whether the victim’s testimony was inherently improbable such that it could not support Jok’s conviction	Beth’s account was credible and corroborated by medical evidence; the State urged deference to the factfinder	Beth’s testimony contained material inconsistencies, a patently false statement about simultaneous acts, and lacked corroboration, making it inherently improbable	Testimony was not inherently improbable; inconsistencies were minor or explained, the “patent falsity” claim failed, medical evidence corroborated assault, and conviction affirmed

State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule for sufficiency claims at jury trials; discussed limits and interaction with bench‑trial procedure)
State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (describes inherently improbable doctrine and circumstances warranting disregarding victim testimony)
State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (applies inherent‑improbability analysis and emphasizes corroboration and human‑experience considerations)
Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (explains deference to trial court factual findings and the clear‑error standard)