State v. Otterson, 246 P.3d 168

Otterson was convicted of rape of a child, sodomy of a child, object rape of a child, and sexual abuse of a child in Utah.
He appealed raising three challenges: lack of bill of particulars, denial of access to counseling records, and admission of 404(b) evidence without proper notice.
The state provided a narrowed date window in response to the bill of particulars request; Otterson sought more specific dates he claimed were necessary for defense.
The trial court conducted an in camera review of the counseling records and later sealed them, ruling no exculpatory material was present.
The trial court ruled that the state did not provide 404(b) notice and initially curtailed other bad acts evidence, but the court ultimately admitted some evidence within the amended timeframe.
On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings on all three issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of the bill of particulars dismissal proper?	Otterson contends the state failed to provide sufficiently definite dates.	Otterson argues more precise dates were needed to prepare a defense.	Affirmed denial; notice deemed constitutionally adequate and non-prejudicial.
Did the trial court err in denying access to counseling records?	Otterson sought in camera review for exculpatory information.	Otterson failed to show exculpatory material; review was preserved but ultimately no material relevance found.	Affirmed denial; Otterson failed to preserve or demonstrate material exculpatory evidence.
Whether admission of 404(b) evidence without proper notice requires reversal.	State failed to give required 404(b) notice, so evidence should have been excluded.	Even if notice was lacking, the error was harmless in light of the record and lack of identified prejudicial evidence.	Affirmed; any error was harmless given lack of identified prejudicial evidence and failure to show material harm.

State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028 (Utah 1991) (constitutionality of notice; adequacy depends on defense impact)
State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771 (Utah 1985) (reliability of children's recollection and date specificity)
State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1987) (full disclosure may still be constitutionally deficient)
State v. Blake, 2002 UT 113, 63 P.3d 56 (Utah) (in camera review balancing privacy and defense access)
State v. Worthen, 2009 UT 79, 222 P.3d 1144 (Utah) (trial court must determine materiality of evidence)
State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah) (standard for review of 404(b) evidence admissibility)
State v. Johnson, 784 P.2d 1135 (Utah 1989) (harmless error doctrine in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, 999 P.2d 7 (Utah) (reversal requires showing of prejudice from evidentiary error)
State v. Bushman, 2010 UT App 120, 231 P.3d 833 (Utah App) (procedural review on appeal of trial court rulings)