Background

• Phong Nguyen challenged his 2008 convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, two counts of sodomy on a child, and one count of attempted rape of a child.
• The video interview of the alleged victim, AH, was admitted under Utah law (76-5-411) and Rule 15.5, with redactions, but without a separate finding of good cause.
• Nguyen argued that Rule 15.5 required a separate finding of “good cause” to admit the recorded statements.
• The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed admission, holding good cause is satisfied when the rule’s factors are met (accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness, and interest of justice).
• The Utah Supreme Court held that no separate necessity finding is required; good cause is established by the Rule 15.5 factors and the interest of justice, and the district court’s written findings satisfied this.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, 48 P.3d 931 (Utah 2002) (inquiry into reliability and circumstances surrounding out-of-court statements)
• State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125 (Utah 1989) (trial court must express findings on admissibility under 76-5-411 and Rule 15.5)
• State v. Loughton, 747 P.2d 426 (Utah 1987) (recognizes protection for child victims and need to avoid trauma; supports admissibility rationale)
• State v. Nelson, 777 P.2d 479 (Utah 1989) (discusses balancing reliability and need to admit; dicta on need requirement)
• State v. Matsamas, 808 P.2d 1048 (Utah 1991) (reliability focus rather than need analysis in admissibility)
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; unavailable testimony considerations referenced)