State v. Lintzen
2015 UT App 68
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Anthony Lintzen was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual abuse of his stepdaughter for a charged incident when she was 10, and the prosecution introduced evidence of multiple prior sexual acts against the same child over several years.
- The child reported multiple incidents, including genital touching, digital penetration, and that Lintzen had shown pornography; she initially reported some details to a Children’s Justice Center (CJC) interviewer.
- The trial court granted the State’s pretrial motion (in limine) to admit prior acts under Utah R. Evid. 404(c) (child-molestation propensity evidence) and admitted pornography-related evidence under Rule 404(b).
- At trial the child’s testimony differed in some respects from her CJC statements (including testimony that she denied penetration during the charged incident), and the defense sought to introduce a nurse’s written report and later attempted to rely on a previously unavailable witness (“Friend”) discovered after trial.
- The trial court excluded the nurse’s written report as hearsay and cumulative; denied a new trial based on the nurse’s report and new-witness evidence (Friend); and the jury convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior acts under Rule 404(c) (in limine order) | State: prior acts against same child are admissible to show propensity to molest under 404(c); probative value outweighs prejudice after Rule 403/Shickles analysis | Lintzen: prior acts were too dissimilar/too remote in time and more egregious, producing unfair prejudice | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; thorough Shickles/Rule 403 analysis supported admission (course-of-conduct rationale) |
| Whether trial testimony changes required revisiting the in limine order | State: no timely request to revisit; in limine order remained valid absent timely objection | Lintzen: child’s trial testimony undermined basis for admitting prior acts and warranted new trial | Affirmed: claim unpreserved—defendant failed to renew objection when the testimony changed; no plain-error/exception shown |
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered witness (Friend) | State: Friend unlikely to be available/credible; proposed testimony largely cumulative or inadmissible (expert-level computer-forensics) | Lintzen: Friend would impeach child and show brother’s involvement, making a different result probable | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found Friend unavailable, credibility impaired, and testimony cumulative or inadmissible; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of nurse’s written report (post-verdict basis for new trial) | State: report was hearsay and cumulative of live testimony | Lintzen: report became vital combined with Friend’s testimony to show alternative perpetrator | Affirmed: defendant failed to challenge trial court’s contemporaneous hearsay/cumulative ruling; contingent argument depending on Friend fails too |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (Rule 403 assessment essential when admitting prior-bad-acts evidence)
- State v. Reed, 8 P.3d 1025 (Utah 2000) (prior similar acts against the same child in an uninterrupted course of conduct admissible; jurors decide credibility)
- State v. Burke, 256 P.3d 1102 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (Shickles factors applied to 404(b) analysis)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (trial courts should consider helpful Shickles factors in 404(b)/403 analyses)
- State v. Balfour, 198 P.3d 471 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (limits on admitting dissimilar prior sexual acts; importance of victim identity and factual similarity)
- State v. Hildreth, 238 P.3d 444 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (dissimilar acts against different victims and lack of temporal proximity weigh against admission)
- State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291 (Utah 1988) (sets out factors for balancing probative value vs. prejudice under Rule 403)
- State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2004) (newly discovered evidence grounds for new trial only if not merely cumulative and likely to produce different result)