State v. Richins, 460 P.3d 593

Background

A 15-year-old neighbor (Victim) and her mother saw Ronald Jay Richins standing in his yard on a morning in May 2017; Victim testified his hands and jean flap movements made it appear he was exposing himself and possibly masturbating. Mother corroborated seeing his hands down but not specific exposure.
Police interviewed Victim, Mother, and Richins months later; Richins denied misconduct but admitted he was likely smoking in the yard. Victim acknowledged she knew Richins was a registered sex offender but did not know the specific reason why.
The State charged Richins with lewdness and sought to admit evidence of four prior incidents (2007–2013) in which different women reported Richins exposed himself and touched his genitals; two prior incidents led to convictions.
The district court allowed the 404(b) evidence by stipulation (sanitized summary of the four incidents) and gave a limiting instruction that the evidence was admitted only to rebut claims of mistake or fabrication, not to show character.
The jury convicted Richins; on appeal the sole issue was whether the court abused its discretion in admitting the prior-acts evidence under Utah R. Evid. 404(b), including application of the doctrine of chances and Rule 403 balancing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Richins)	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) for a noncharacter purpose	Other-acts evidence is admissible to rebut claim Victim was mistaken or fabricated (doctrine of chances).	The defense was mistake/bias, not fabrication, so prior-acts are improper character/propensity evidence.	Admissible: court upheld 404(b) use to rebut false-accusation/mistake via doctrine of chances.
Foundational requirements of doctrine of chances (materiality, similarity, independence, frequency)	Prior incidents are materially in dispute, strikingly similar, independent, and sufficiently frequent to lower chance of coincidence.	Incidents differ in context (stranger vs. neighbor) and State offered no statistical frequency data tailored to sex-offender population.	Requirements met: materiality, similarity, frequency satisfied; independence conceded below.
Rule 403 prejudice balancing	Probative value (corroborative statistical inference) outweighs unfair prejudice; stipulation + limiting instruction mitigated prejudice.	Prior-act evidence is highly prejudicial and likely to prompt conviction for propensity.	No abuse: prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value; conviction affirmed.
Scope of permissible rebuttal (fabrication vs. unconscious bias/mistake)	Rebuttal of fabrication or mistake both justify other-acts evidence under doctrine of chances.	Distinguishing fabrication from subconscious bias/mistake matters; doctrine should not apply the same way.	Court: distinction immaterial here—both are forms of false accusation; doctrine applies to rebut either.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Verde, 296 P.3d 673 (Utah 2012) (adopts doctrine of chances to admit prior independent accusations to rebut fabrication or mistake)
State v. Lowther, 398 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2017) (articulates doctrine-of-chances foundational requirements: materiality, similarity, independence, frequency)
State v. Pullman, 306 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (404(b) is inclusionary; prior bad acts admissible for noncharacter purposes)
State v. Balfour, 418 P.3d 79 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review and discussion of rebutting fabrication defenses)
State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (presumption in favor of admissibility; Rule 403 requires substantial prejudice to exclude)
State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 6 P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000) (evidence offered solely to prove propensity is inadmissible)
State v. Lane, 444 P.3d 553 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (Rule 403 balancing when evidence supports both proper and improper inferences)