State v. Patterson
407 P.3d 1002
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Victim (17) and Patterson (23) worked together; after a shift Patterson walked Victim to her car, kissed her, and pushed her into the back seat.
- Inside the car Patterson undid Victim’s pants, put his hand in her pants, and tried to insert his fingers into her vagina; Victim repeatedly told him to stop.
- Victim testified Patterson “separated the labia” with his two fingers, said it hurt, and that he later moved his fingers back and began touching around the area.
- Patterson admitted he had attempted penetration but said he did not penetrate, blaming “tight quarters.”
- Patterson was convicted of object rape and two counts of forcible sexual abuse; he appealed, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence as to penetration for object rape.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove "penetration, however slight," element of object rape | State: Victim’s testimony that Patterson tried to put fingers into her, separated her labia, and that it hurt supports a reasonable inference of digital penetration | Patterson: Victim’s testimony was equivocal; it described only attempted penetration or touching of outer labia — conviction rests on speculation | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, jury reasonably inferred penetration from the testimony and Patterson’s own admission of attempting penetration |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simmons, 759 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1988) (victim’s testimony must show entry between outer labial folds to prove penetration)
- State v. Pullman, 306 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (vacated conviction where testimony was inconclusive whether touching involved required anatomical element)
- State v. Shumway, 63 P.3d 94 (Utah 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Finnerty, 470 F.2d 78 (3d Cir. 1972) (an inference cannot be relied on when an opposite inference may be drawn with equal consistency)
- Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 358 P.3d 1067 (Utah 2015) (distinguishing permissible inferences from impermissible speculation)
- Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1989) (prosecutor must prove every essential element of the offense)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction)