State v. Jones, 427 P.3d 538

Victim (age 8–11) was sexually abused by Garvin Wayne Jones over several years, including touching, oral sex, vaginal and anal intercourse, and showing pornographic images; photos of the Victim were found.
Jones was charged with 18 counts including child rape (Utah Code § 76-5-402.1), child sodomy, aggravated child sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of a minor, and dealing in material harmful to a minor.
At trial Victim and a nurse testified that penetration occurred; evidence from Jones’s devices corroborated sexual material involving minors.
Defense objected to jury instructions, arguing the child rape statute (§ 76-5-402.1), as applied with § 76-5-407(2)(b)(v) (which provides “any touching, however slight” suffices), was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, and that the statute effectively required only touching rather than penetration.
The trial court overruled the objection; the jury convicted Jones on multiple counts, and Jones appealed raising overbreadth and vagueness challenges to the child rape statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Utah Code § 76-5-402.1 read with § 76-5-407(2)(b)(v) is unconstitutionally overbroad	State: statutes criminalize unprotected conduct (child sexual abuse) and are therefore constitutional	Jones: the statutes reach conduct beyond traditional rape (allowing conviction without proof of penetration), potentially criminalizing constitutionally protected activity	Court: Not overbroad — no constitutional right to sexually touch a child; statutes target unprotected conduct
Whether the statutes are unconstitutionally vague as applied	State: statute is clear as applied to Jones’s conduct	Jones: statutes are vague because § 76-5-407 lowers the required showing to any touching, creating uncertainty about the required element (penetration vs touching)	Court: Jones lacks standing to raise vagueness — his alleged conduct (penetration) is clearly proscribed, so vagueness challenge fails

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (standard for overbreadth/vagueness analysis; vagueness in non–First Amendment context assessed as-applied)
Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 86 P.3d 735 (Utah 2004) (constitutional challenges to statutes reviewed for correctness)
Greenwood v. City of N. Salt Lake, 817 P.2d 816 (Utah 1991) (presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears burden)
State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (overbreadth doctrine and limits where conduct is unprotected)
Miller v. Weaver, 66 P.3d 592 (Utah 2003) (statutes interpreted harmoniously with related statutes)
State v. Ansari, 100 P.3d 231 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (defendant who clearly engaged in proscribed conduct lacks standing to assert vagueness based on others’ hypothetical conduct)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (overbreadth principles in First Amendment contexts)