State v. LoPrinzi, 338 P.3d 253

Background

Sarah Ann LoPrinzi was charged with three counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor based on allegations she had oral and vaginal sex with a 15‑year‑old over a holiday weekend; two counts resulted in conviction and one in acquittal.
LoPrinzi's former defense counsel provided the prosecutor with LoPrinzi's mental‑health records (while she sought admission to mental health court and contemplated a diminished‑capacity defense); defense counsel testified this was the only material disclosed.
LoPrinzi moved to disqualify the entire Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office or to dismiss the case as prosecutorial misconduct; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found only mental‑health records were disclosed, and denied the motion.
At trial, the State presented the complaining witness, corroborating testimony from LoPrinzi’s ex‑husband and a family friend, and evidence that LoPrinzi left Utah shortly after initial police contact; LoPrinzi testified and denied any sexual conduct.
The trial court denied LoPrinzi’s request for a lesser‑included instruction on sexual battery, gave a flight instruction over objection, and the jury convicted on Counts 1 and 3 but acquitted Count 2.
LoPrinzi moved for a new trial arguing inconsistent verdicts; the trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	LoPrinzi's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the DA’s office should be disqualified or the case dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct after defense counsel turned over defense file	Defense counsel disclosed confidential materials (entire file) to the prosecutor, prejudicing the defense and warranting disqualification/dismissal	Only LoPrinzi’s mental‑health records were provided for mental‑health‑court evaluation and in anticipation of a diminished‑capacity defense; no misconduct occurred	Affirmed: trial court’s factual finding that only mental‑health records were disclosed was unchallenged; no misconduct shown, so denial of disqualification/dismissal proper
Whether the court erred by refusing a lesser‑included‑offense instruction (sexual battery)	Sexual battery is a lesser included offense and should have been submitted to the jury	Elements do not overlap in a way that creates a rational basis to convict on sexual battery while acquitting on unlawful sexual activity with a minor	Affirmed: no rational basis in the record to acquit on the charged offense and convict on sexual battery given the evidence (which presented consent vs. no sexual activity)
Whether the court erred by giving a flight instruction	LoPrinzi left Utah but was not informed she was restricted or under arrest; departure was not flight to avoid prosecution	Sudden departure and abandoned‑appearing home shortly after police contact permits an inference of consciousness of guilt	Affirmed: evidence supported a reasonable inference of flight; instruction proper and included caution about innocent explanations
Whether verdicts were inconsistent so as to require a new trial	Conviction on two counts but acquittal on a third involving the same witnesses is internally inconsistent and requires reversal/new trial	Even if verdicts are internally inconsistent, convictions stand if sufficient evidence supports each guilty verdict; jury may reach inconsistent results	Affirmed: sufficient evidence supported the two convictions; inconsistency alone does not mandate reversal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Berriel, 299 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2013) (standard and review framework for lesser‑included offense instructions)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (two‑part test for lesser‑included offense instructions)
State v. Franklin, 735 P.2d 34 (Utah 1987) (flight evidence probative of consciousness of guilt; flight instruction discussion)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (discussion of inconsistent jury verdicts and appellate limits)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (principle on inconsistent verdicts)
State v. Hancock, 874 P.2d 182 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and inconsistent‑verdict challenges)