State v. Peraza, 479 P.3d 1139

Robert Alonzo Peraza was convicted of four counts of sodomy on a child based entirely on testimonial evidence; there was no physical corroboration.
The child’s credibility was extensively impeached at trial: she had recanted to her mother and to a private investigator, her allegations changed over time, and her mother testified she thought the allegations were fabricated.
Twelve days before trial, the State disclosed it would call a rebuttal expert (Expert) to explain why recantations and delayed disclosures are common in child-abuse cases.
Peraza moved for a continuance to retain a defense expert to rebut Expert and to present evidence that the child’s therapy (effigy‑doll) could explain recantations and escalating allegation severity; the district court denied the continuance.
At trial the State called Expert as a rebuttal witness; Peraza had no expert to counter those opinions. The appellate court found Expert’s unrebutted testimony effectively rehabilitated the child’s credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant proved prejudice from denial of continuance	State: defendant bears burden but denial was not prejudicial because defense impeached child and cross‑examined Expert	Peraza: denial prevented retention of a rebuttal expert, leaving Expert’s rehabilitative testimony unrebutted and harming defense	Court: Applying the correct standard (defendant bears burden), Peraza proved prejudice; convictions vacated and case remanded
Who bears burden on appeal to show prejudice from denial of a common‑law continuance	State: defendant must prove prejudice	Peraza: argued the court of appeals had shifted burden to State (earlier ruling)	Supreme Court clarified (Peraza II): when continuance is sought under common law, defendant bears burden; this court applied that standard on remand
Admissibility / bolstering effect of State’s expert testimony	State: Expert admissible to rebut defense attack on child’s credibility	Peraza: Expert improperly bolstered the child’s testimony	Not re‑decided on remand; Peraza II addressed admissibility and is not reconsidered here (remand limited to prejudice issue)

State v. Alonzo Peraza, 469 P.3d 1023 (Utah 2020) (Utah Supreme Court clarified burden for showing prejudice from denial of a common‑law continuance and remanded)
State v. Peraza, 427 P.3d 276 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (initial court of appeals opinion addressing continuance denial and expert testimony)
Mackin v. State, 387 P.3d 986 (Utah 2016) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for continuance rulings)
State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (expert testimony that bolsters complainant’s credibility can be prejudicial where case hinges on credibility)
State v. Dick, 280 P.3d 445 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (evaluating prejudice from a missing witness to rebut rebuttal testimony)
State v. King, 248 P.3d 984 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (reversal for improper bolstering where victim credibility and lack of physical evidence were central)