State v. Ring
424 P.3d 845
Utah2018Background
- George Ring, a registered sex offender, was charged with raping a 3‑year‑old (H.F.) in his girlfriend’s apartment; H.F. told her mother and later gave a recorded CJC interview describing the assault.
- Police learned Ring had two prior child‑sex convictions from the 1990s; the State sought to admit evidence of those prior molestations under Utah R. Evid. 404(c).
- Pretrial hearings occurred on (1) admissibility of prior bad‑act evidence (parties and court relied on Shickles factors) and (2) admissibility of H.F.’s recorded CJC interview under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5; the court admitted both; defense did not object at trial.
- At trial, H.F. testified but was largely unresponsive; the CJC recording was played for the jury; multiple witnesses testified about Ring’s prior molestations (three incidents overall).
- The jury convicted Ring of child rape and failure to register; on direct appeal Ring raised three main claims: (1) court erred by applying all Shickles factors, (2) admission of prior‑acts evidence was an abuse of discretion, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for several alleged omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court’s use of Shickles factors for 404(c)/403 analysis | Ring: district court erred by relying exclusively on each Shickles factor | State: Shickles factors historically guided admissibility; parties relied on them at hearing | Court declined to review (invited error): Ring had urged the court to apply Shickles, so plain‑error review barred |
| Admission of prior child‑molestation acts under 404(c) and 403 | Ring: prior acts were overly prejudicial and remote, should be excluded under Rule 403 | State: prior acts were highly probative (similar age, setting, opportunity, modus operandi); 404(c) allows propensity evidence in child‑molestation cases | Abuse‑of‑discretion review: admission affirmed — probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Admission of recorded CJC interview (Confrontation/Rule 15.5) | Ring: admission violated Confrontation Clause and Rule 15.5 because H.F. was effectively unavailable at trial and not properly cross‑examined | State: H.F. had been available at a prior preliminary hearing where the recorded interview was admitted and Ring declined cross‑examination then | Court: counsel’s failure to object was not ineffective; under controlling precedent at the time, prior cross‑examination at preliminary hearing made an objection futile |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple omissions) | Ring: counsel failed to object to Shickles usage, the video‑game incident, the CJC interview, and presence of Bikers Against Child Abuse | State: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy or nonprejudicial; Ring failed to provide record support for the BACA claim | Court: Strickland standard not met — Ring did not show deficient performance + prejudice; ineffective‑assistance claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291 (Utah 1988) (established factors historically used to assess admissibility of other‑crimes evidence)
- State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (held court should focus on Rule 403 text rather than mechanically applying Shickles factors)
- State v. Cuttler, 367 P.3d 981 (Utah 2015) (applied Lucero logic to Rule 404(c) and disapproved use of some Shickles factors)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination)