State v. Richins, 496 P.3d 158

Background

While driving her daughter to school, Neighbor and Daughter observed Ronald Richins standing in his yard with his hands near his genitals; Daughter testified it "looked like he might have been masturbating," but both witnesses expressed uncertainty.
The State sought to admit four prior incidents (2007–2013) in which Richins was accused/convicted of exposing or masturbating in public; the parties stipulated to a sanitized description of those incidents at trial.
The district court admitted the other-acts evidence under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) and the doctrine of chances (finding materiality, similarity, independence, and frequency satisfied) and denied a Rule 403 exclusion; jury convicted Richins of lewdness by a sex offender.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, treating the evidence as admissible to rebut a claim that the accuser fabricated or was mistaken; two judges expressed concerns about doctrine-of-chances use.
The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that rebutting fabrication may be a permissible noncharacter purpose under Verde but reversed: the State failed to establish the required frequency baseline and the district court failed to perform the required Rule 403 balancing, requiring a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Richins)	Held
Whether rebutting a charge of fabrication (or mistake) is a permissible noncharacter purpose under Rule 404(b)/doctrine of chances	Verde allows prior-acts evidence under the doctrine of chances to rebut fabrication/mistake; the evidence tends to show it is unlikely multiple accusers fabricated independently	Admission invites improper propensity inference; jury cannot reliably separate probability-based inference from character inference	Court: Rebutting fabrication can be a permissible noncharacter purpose under Verde, but must be applied with greater rigor and transparency
Whether the doctrine-of-chances foundational showings (materiality, similarity, independence, frequency) were met	Prior incidents were similar, independent, frequent enough (4 allegations in 7 years) and material to whether Daughter saw what she claimed	The acts were temporally remote, dissimilar in context, and the State did not establish a baseline frequency—so frequency and materiality not shown	Court: Materiality (issue in bona fide dispute) could be met here, but frequency was not established because the State failed to produce a baseline; admission under doctrine of chances was erroneous
Whether the district court adequately performed the Rule 403 balancing to exclude evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value	The stipulation, limiting details, and jury instruction mitigated prejudice; probative value of showing improbability of repeated fabrication outweighed danger	The risk of unfair prejudice and propensity inference was high and the court failed to weigh permissible vs. impermissible inferences as required	Court: District court abused discretion by failing to weigh the probative value of the permissible inference against the danger of the impermissible propensity inference; Rule 403 exclusion required
Whether the evidentiary error was prejudicial and entitles Richins to a new trial	The other-acts evidence was central to prosecutor's theory (doctrine-of-chances argument); without it, jury faced equivocal testimony and reasonable doubt likely remained	Jury likely convicted because of the other-acts evidence; removal would have reasonably led to a more favorable outcome	Court: Error was prejudicial; conviction vacated and new trial ordered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (adopted doctrine of chances to rebut fabrication and identified materiality, similarity, independence, frequency factors)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (clarified limits on prior-acts analysis and reiterated Rule 403 role)
State v. Argueta, 469 P.3d 938 (Utah 2020) (held courts may not assess frequency solely by intuition; baseline benchmark required)
State v. Lopez, 417 P.3d 116 (Utah 2018) (discussed Verde factors and doctrine-of-chances prerequisites)
State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (earlier discussion of rigorous district-court review, later abrogated in part by Thornton)
State v. Lowther, 398 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2017) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion principles)
State v. Lane, 444 P.3d 553 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (concurring criticism emphasizing need for baseline/context when assessing frequency)