State v. Marchet, 2012 UT App 197

Marchet appeals his rape conviction from Utah Court of Appeals (2012 UT App 197).
Incident: M.P. alleges Marchet forced sex at his Salt Lake condo after persistent invitation.
Two additional witnesses testified they were raped by Marchet to show intent, lack of consent, and modus operandi.
Marchet requested an ignorance or mistake of fact jury instruction; trial court denied it.
The court admitted assault evidence as Rule 404(b) evidence; defense argued prejudice and lack of relevance.
Court affirmed the conviction, ruling the error harmless and instructions adequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of assault evidence under Rule 404(b)	Marchet contends the evidence was inflammatory and prejudicial and not probative.	Marchet maintains the evidence was probative of intent and lack of consent and properly limited.	Harmless error; admissible to corroborate lack of consent and MO.
Ineffective assistance for opening the door to the assault evidence	Marchet asserts counsel was ineffective for eliciting the door-opening question.	Marchet argues prejudice from admission due to ineffective trial strategy.	Harmless; no prejudice shown.
Jury instruction on ignorance or mistake of fact	Marchet seeks instruction that ignorance/mistake negates culpable intent.	Instruction sixteen properly stated elements and mental state when read with others.	Instruction properly informed the jury; no reversible error.

State v. Heaps, 999 P.2d 565 (Utah 2000) (review of evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Johnson, 163 P.3d 695 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (harmless error standard for improper evidence)
Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 174 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (instruction sufficiency when read as a whole)
State v. Larsen, 828 P.2d 487 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (general rule on jury instructions and framing of issues)
State v. Marchet (Marchet I), 219 P.3d 75 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (admissibility and purpose of similar-acts evidence in rape trials)