455 P.3d 1087
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Leota married Victim’s mother when Victim was 11; Victim called him “daddy” and they had an affectionate household relationship.
- In 2016 Leota was charged with 17 sexual-offense counts; after a 2017 jury trial he was convicted of one count of forcible sexual abuse (acquitted on the other counts).
- Victim testified that when she was 15 she and Leota were cuddling on his bed watching TV; Leota rubbed her back, then put his hands on her breasts over her clothing, asked “Is it okay if Daddy does this?,” Victim indicated no, and Leota apologized and removed his hands.
- A detective testified Leota initially denied touching, then admitted touching Victim’s breasts over clothing, said the hands were “accidentally” on her breasts but could not explain what was accidental, and said he removed his hands after Victim expressed discomfort and apologized.
- The State prosecuted under the forcible sexual abuse statute’s indecent-liberties prong (over-clothing touching may qualify if comparable in gravity to the enumerated skin-to-skin touching); the jury was instructed on both the skin-to-skin and indecent-liberties variants and on factors to assess indecent liberties.
- Leota moved for directed verdict and later to arrest judgment arguing insufficient evidence (over-clothing touching lacked required gravity; Victim’s testimony was inherently improbable); both motions were denied and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether over-the-clothing touching can constitute "indecent liberties" under Utah Code § 76-5-404(1) | The State: evidence showed Leota had sexual interest in and acted upon it with his stepdaughter; age/relationship precluded consent, so the conduct met the indecent-liberties prong. | Leota: touching was accidental or, even if intentional, not of the same gravity as skin-to-skin touching required by the statute’s touching variant. | The court: over-clothing touching may qualify under the indecent-liberties prong when comparable in gravity; jury reasonably inferred intentional, intrusive conduct given relationship, context, duration, and Leota’s admissions—sufficient evidence to convict. |
| Whether Victim’s testimony was inherently improbable so the verdict cannot stand | The State: Victim’s testimony corroborated by Detective’s testimony that Leota admitted the over-clothing touching and expressed remorse. | Leota: Victim’s testimony had inconsistencies, alleged falsehoods, and she had a reputation for dishonesty, making it inherently improbable. | The court: inherent-improbability doctrine inapplicable because independent corroboration (Leota’s confession to police) supported the verdict; credibility was for the jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ashcraft, 349 P.3d 664 (Utah 2015) (standard of review—deference to jury and reasonable inferences on sufficiency review)
- State v. Jacobs, 144 P.3d 226 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (over-the-clothing touching may constitute indecent liberties depending on surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Carrell, 414 P.3d 1030 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (indecent-liberties prong covers conduct of comparable gravity to enumerated skin-to-skin touching)
- State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (inherent-improbability doctrine is narrowly applied and requires lack of corroboration)
- State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (reinforcing that inherent-improbability reversal requires no other circumstantial or direct evidence)