State v. Peterson, 351 P.3d 812

Background

Matthew Peterson lived with the victim’s family, frequently cared for the child, picked her up from school, fed her, and was left alone with her—facts the State used to show a position of authority/special trust.
The child testified that on separate occasions Peterson (1) touched her "private" with his finger and that his finger went "in" her private, (2) with a pillow over her head, something that felt "like skin" went "in" her private after a zipper sound, and (3) used a small vibrating device in her private; she also testified Peterson threatened to kill her mother if she told.
A vibrating device was recovered; DNA on its tip matched the child (and excluded Peterson); analysis did not identify Peterson as the source.
Peterson was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child (first-degree), one count of rape of a child (first-degree), one count of object rape of a child (first-degree), and one count of tampering with a witness (third-degree).
On appeal Peterson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for all convictions. The court applied the standard of reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and reversing only if evidence was inconclusive or inherently improbable.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Peterson's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported the penetration element for aggravated sexual abuse	Child’s testimony that Peterson’s finger went “in” her front/"private" established penetration	Child’s non-anatomical language and general child imprecision made penetration unproven	Verdict affirmed; child’s testimony could reasonably be interpreted as penetration (finger between labial folds)
Whether Peterson held a "position of special trust"	Evidence he lived with family, babysat, cared for child, and the child was expected to listen to him showed authority and undue influence	Argued insufficient to show special trust/undue influence	Verdict affirmed; jury could find Petersson was babysitter/cohabitant able to exert undue influence
Whether evidence supported rape and object rape convictions	Child’s description (zipper, felt like skin, something went in) supported inference of penile penetration; child’s account of vibrator use supported object rape despite DNA results	Argued child didn’t see penis, DNA on vibrator excluded Peterson, so evidence was insufficient	Verdict affirmed; inferences from child’s testimony were reasonable and jury could weigh DNA and testimony together
Whether evidence supported witness tampering under updated statute	Child’s testimony of Peterson’s threat in response to her saying she would tell mother showed intent to prevent investigation	Argued State had to prove Peterson believed an investigation was pending or would be initiated	Verdict affirmed; statute amended to allow conviction on intent to prevent an investigation, and jury could infer that intent from the threat

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hales, 152 P.3d 321 (Utah 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Simmons, 759 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1988) (penetration satisfied by insertion between labial folds)
State v. Watkins, 309 P.3d 209 (Utah 2013) (interpretation of position of special trust/authority)
State v. Fedorowicz, 52 P.3d 1194 (Utah 2002) (jury may credit testimony that supports verdict)
State v. Bradley, 752 P.2d 874 (Utah 1988) (prior interpretation of witness tampering statute)
State v. Jones, 330 P.3d 97 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (insufficiency where no evidence of intent to prevent investigation)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (jury as sole judge of credibility and weight of evidence)