State v. Lewis, 475 P.3d 956

On May 27, 2017, after heavy drinking at a family cabin, Victim walked to the woods, tripped, and later reported being forced to have vaginal then anal sex by Devin Lewis; she escaped when his phone rang.
Victim was found distraught; friends and Wife observed her terrified state and Wife confronted Lewis; police were called and Victim was transported to a hospital.
A nurse’s sexual‑assault exam found abrasions, bruising, debris in genital areas, and injuries consistent with being held down and nonconsensual penetration.
Lewis testified the sex was consensual and that both were very intoxicated; he could not recall key details. He admitted intercourse but disputed nonconsent.
Trial testimony included a sergeant and a detective who, based on frequent sexual‑assault work, testified victims’ multiple accounts often vary; Lewis objected to bolstering and some questions about ultimate issues.
Jury convicted Lewis of forcible sodomy and intoxication (acquitted of rape); Lewis appealed arguing improper bolstering/opinion testimony and insufficiency of evidence; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of officers’ testimony as improper bolstering/opinion on weight	State: Officers may describe common patterns from training/experience; did not directly vouch for Victim; any error harmless.	Lewis: Sergeant/Detective impermissibly bolstered Victim and opined on ultimate issue (guilt/weight of evidence).	Court: Sergeant’s testimony about variations in victims’ accounts did not directly assess Victim’s truthfulness and was permissible; Detective’s bolstering claim was unpreserved; objections that testimony commented on weight were unpreserved and, under plain‑error review, any error was not shown to be harmful.
Sufficiency of the evidence / directed verdict	State: Victim’s testimony, corroborating emotional and medical evidence, and Lewis’s own testimony provided ample proof of nonconsent/recklessness.	Lewis: Inconsistencies in Victim’s statements rendered the evidence insufficient to convict.	Court: Evidence was sufficient; inconsistencies could be attributed to trauma and the jury reasonably found forcible sodomy beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (standard for reviewing admission of testimony)
State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986) (limits on anecdotal statistical testimony)
State v. Cegers, 440 P.3d 924 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (improper bolstering by witness opinion on a victim's truthfulness)
State v. Adams, 5 P.3d 642 (Utah 2000) (distinguishing permissible expert/lay testimony about cognitive ability from direct credibility opinions)
State v. Stefaniak, 900 P.2d 1094 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (improper bolstering where witness vouched for victim's candor)
State v. Bragg, 317 P.3d 452 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (police testimony that victim appeared "genuine" held improper bolstering)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation and harmless‑error principles)
State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (doctrine regarding inherently improbable testimony)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (jury as exclusive judge of witness credibility)
State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (standard for reviewing directed‑verdict rulings)