State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 39

In 2008–2010 Eric Ray (then an adult) began an online/text relationship with R.M., a Utah minor; Ray traveled to Utah in March 2010 and over multiple hotel visits engaged in progressive sexual touching with R.M.
After Ray returned to Illinois, R.M. was hospitalized with meningitis; a hospital interview with police was brief and occurred while R.M. was reportedly sedated; later interviews with family and undercover police yielded additional admissions and corroborating messages.
The State charged Ray with forcible sexual abuse (and related counts) and relied on Utah’s "enticement" provision (Utah Code § 76-5-406(2)(k)) to prove lack of consent for a victim aged 14–17 enticed by an adult more than three years older.
The prosecution produced 11 pages of medical records (a Medications Given Report) to defense; 11 other pages were disclosed to the State by the hospital but sealed after in camera review; defense sought disclosure of the remaining pages.
Ray was convicted of forcible sexual abuse; on appeal the Utah Ct. App. earlier vacated the conviction on separate ineffective-assistance grounds but the Utah Supreme Court reinstated the conviction and remanded remaining claims (including the vagueness challenge to the enticement provision and the sealed medical-records dispute).

Issue	Ray's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Utah Code § 76-5-406(2)(k) (enticement) is unconstitutionally vague on its face	"Entice" is undefined and ambiguous; statute fails to give fair notice of proscribed speech/conduct	Term "entice" has ordinary meaning; caselaw and dictionary definitions provide adequate notice; mens rea supplied by statute	Statute not unconstitutionally vague on its face; affirmed
Whether trial court erred by withholding 11 sealed pages of R.M.’s medical records (discovery/Brady)	Records were material to impeachment of R.M. and would have undermined credibility; disclosure required	Trial court performed in camera review, found no relevance, disclosed medications report; any nondisclosure was not outcome-determinative	Even if disclosure error occurred, it was harmless beyond a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome; conviction affirmed

State v. Ray, 469 P.3d 871 (Utah 2020) (Supreme Court reinstating conviction and remanding remaining claims)
State v. Billingsley, 311 P.3d 995 (Utah 2013) (focus enticement inquiry on defendant’s conduct)
State v. Gallegos, 220 P.3d 136 (Utah 2009) (rejecting vagueness challenge to statute using "entice")
State v. Gibson, 908 P.2d 352 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (enticement defined via dictionary and totality-of-circumstances factors)
State v. Scieszka, 897 P.2d 1224 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (factors relevant to enticement/indecent liberties analysis)
State v. MacGuire, 84 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2004) (vagueness doctrine as procedural due process/fair warning)
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2015) (invalidating an unacceptably vague residual statutory clause)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (facial vagueness tests and First Amendment context)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (vagueness standards; common words may be sufficiently clear)