State v. Otterson
2010 UT App 388
| Utah Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Otterson was convicted of rape of a child, sodomy of a child, object rape of a child, and sexual abuse of a child.
- He appealed on three grounds: failure to dismiss due to lack of a precise bill of particulars, denial of access to counseling records, and admission of prior bad acts without proper 404(b) notice.
- The information charged offenses occurring between 1990 and 1993 based on a report from Otterson's adult daughter in 2003.
- Otterson sought a bill of particulars with specific dates; the State offered a window of four to ten months for each charge, which he challenged.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and conducted an in camera review of the daughter's counseling records.
- The court ultimately allowed the 404(b) evidence to be admitted subject to its ruling on notice, and Otterson did not identify specific improperly admitted items on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the denial of the bill of particulars require dismissal? | Otterson | Otterson | No reversible error; denial affirmed |
| Was Otterson entitled to the counseling records or an in camera review? | Otterson | Otterson | Trial court properly conducted in camera review; no error preserved |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting 404(b) evidence without timely notice? | Otterson | Otterson | Harmless error; no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1991) (notice must be constitutionally adequate; failure evaluated for prejudice)
- State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771 (Utah 1985) (children's ability to pinpoint dates; defense considerations)
- McNair v. Hayward, 666 P.2d 321 (Utah 1983) (sufficiency of notice and defense preparation)
- State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1987) (prosecutor's date disclosure may be constitutionally deficient)
- State v. Worthen, 2009 UT 79 (Utah) (trial court's materiality determinations in camera review; material exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah 2008) (analysis of 404(b) notice and evidentiary procedures)
- State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35 (Utah) (erroneous evidentiary rulings require showing of prejudice)
- State v. White, 1994 (Utah Ct.App.) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Johnson, 784 P.2d 1135 (Utah 1989) (prejudice standard for admissibility of prior convictions)
- State v. Blake, 2002 UT 113 (Utah) (privilege and in camera review balancing privacy and defense needs)