State v. Peraza, 2018 UT App 68

Background

Defendant Robert Peraza was convicted of four counts of sodomy on a child following conflicting statements and recantations by the child-victim; the case turned largely on witness credibility.
The State filed an expert-witness notice 32 days before trial listing the expert’s name, CV, a one-sentence topic description, and 130+ article citations, but provided no expert report and many cited articles required paid access.
Defense counsel previously obtained continuances to secure discovery (therapy records) and sought an in camera review; the court ultimately admitted the therapist’s records for impeachment and postponed trial twice.
Defense timely objected that the State’s expert notice failed to satisfy Utah Code § 77-17-13 and Rule 702 because it lacked an expert report, did not identify opinions or methodology, and impeded preparation and potential rebuttal expert retention.
The district court allowed the State’s expert to testify as rebuttal; the expert had not reviewed case materials and testified generally about delayed disclosures and recantation rates (4–20%), which bolstered the victim’s credibility.
The court denied Peraza’s last motion to continue so he could obtain a rebuttal expert; on appeal the Court of Appeals held the State’s disclosure was inadequate, admission of the expert was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial, and denial of the continuance was also an abuse—vacating convictions and remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Peraza's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s expert notice complied with Utah Code § 77-17-13 and allowed Rule 702 gatekeeping	Notice was timely (32 days) and provided CV plus citations sufficient to show expert qualifications and rebuttal purpose	Notice lacked an expert report or written explanation of opinions/methods, and citations were not meaningfully accessible, preventing preparation	The notice did not comply; court exceeded its gatekeeping role because it lacked information to assess Rule 702 reliability; admission was erroneous
Whether Expert’s testimony satisfied Rule 702 (reliability, sufficient facts/data, reliable application)	Expert was qualified by experience; testimony explained why recantations occur and was permissible rebuttal	Expert had not reviewed case materials, offered generalized/academic testimony without demonstrated reliable methods or application to this case	Admission exceeded discretion: Rule 702 requirements were not shown and testimony prejudicially bolstered the victim’s credibility
Whether denial of Peraza’s motion to continue (to procure rebuttal expert and prepare) was proper	Denial was warranted by trial schedule and prior delays; Peraza still could impeach via available fact witnesses	Denial deprived opportunity to obtain rebuttal expert after inadequate disclosure; counsel acted diligently and would likely have secured rebuttal	Denial was an abuse of discretion; Peraza was prejudiced and entitled to a continuance; error contributed to reversal
Whether providing the CJC interview video to the jury in deliberations was permissible (unpreserved)	Not meaningfully argued on appeal	Argued that the video is testimonial and should not go to jury during deliberations	Issue unpreserved; court cautioned that testimonial exhibits (e.g., CJC videos) should not be given to jury on remand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498 (Utah 1986) (courts should exclude statistical/anecdotal evidence that invites juries to rely on a seemingly scientific numerical conclusion about witness veracity)
State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (prejudice standard: reversal required if reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome absent the error)
State v. Tolano, 19 P.3d 400 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (factors to consider in reviewing denial of continuance and emphasis that fairness can outweigh administrative inconvenience)
State v. Jones, 345 P.3d 1195 (Utah 2015) (trial court has gatekeeping duty under Rule 702; expert-admissibility decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)