State v. Kamrowskli, 347 P.3d 861

Kamrowski charged with two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child; victim visited Kamrowski's home during which abuse occurred; victim described multiple abuse incidents to detective; stepmother observed victim's behavioral changes and the victim's photo scratch; Kamrowski denied touching victim; trial included victim and family testimony, Kamrowski's denial, and six witnesses on his character for truthfulness including his wife; wife testified she believed Kamrowski never lied and that the victim had not spoken to her about the abuse; cross-examination sought to impeach Wife’s credibility; verdict: guilty on both counts; Kamrowski moved for new trial alleging plain error from Wife’s testimony; trial court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Wife’s belief testimony was plain error	Kamrowski argues Rule 608 violation	Wife’s testimony flows from Kamrowski opened door	No plain error; door opened by defense
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions	Victim’s testimony allegedly inherently improbable	Guilt supported by victim’s testimony and corroboration not required	Sufficient evidence supports convictions

State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1998) (standard for prejudice in a new-trial context; required reasonable likelihood of different outcome)
State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of a new trial)
State v. Allen, 108 P.3d 730 (Utah 2005) (review of legal determinations in new-trial motions)
State v. Reed, 136 P.3d 1261 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (impeachment allowed to dispute credibility when door opened)
State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (victim’s testimony alone can support conviction unless inherently improbable)
State v. Harper, 136 P.3d 1261 (Utah App. 2006) (opening door to impeachment when credibility of victim featured)