State v. Roberts, 414 P.3d 962

Background

Victim (age 4–5 during abuse, 6 at CJC interview) lived with her mother and appellant Mark Jess Roberts (mother’s boyfriend) and later disclosed abuse to relatives and a therapist.
Grandmother took Victim to the Children’s Justice Center (CJC) about one year after the abuse; the CJC interview was videotaped and contained detailed disclosures of multiple incidents.
State charged Roberts with multiple counts of child rape, sodomy, aggravated sexual abuse, and lewdness; jury convicted on all counts appealed here.
Pretrial/trial evidentiary disputes: (1) admission of the videotaped CJC interview under Utah R. Crim. P. 15.5; (2) whether to strike portions of Victim’s social worker’s testimony for lack of expert notice under Utah Code §77-17-13; (3) exclusion under Utah R. Evid. 403 of evidence that Victim’s grandfather was a convicted child sex offender.
Trial court admitted the CJC interview as sufficiently reliable, denied striking the social worker’s testimony (finding waiver and that exclusion as a remedy was unavailable absent deliberate noncompliance), and excluded grandfather’s conviction evidence as more prejudicial than probative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roberts)	Held
Admissibility of CJC video under R. Crim. P. 15.5	Video reliable: close-in-time interview, spontaneous, consistent, detailed responses appropriate for a 6‑yo	Interviewing technique flawed (leading questions, no truth promise, improper drawings, lack of follow-up); delay and some "incredible" statements undermine reliability	Affirmed: court’s factual findings support reliability; court properly weighed child’s responses and expert testimony; no per se rule that >1 year delay is disqualifying
Motion to strike social worker’s testimony for lack of expert notice (Utah Code §77-17-13)	Testimony admissible and objection waived; remedy for lack of notice is continuance unless deliberate bad faith	Testimony should be stricken for lack of expert notice and was improperly allowed to give expert opinions	Affirmed: objection untimely (waived); statutory remedy is continuance unless deliberate violation—no finding of bad faith—so exclusion not available
Ineffective assistance for failing to timely object to social worker	N/A	Counsel ineffective for late objection, prejudicing Roberts	Affirmed: tactical choices by counsel and availability of continuance make ineffective-assistance claim fail
Admissibility of grandfather’s prior convictions under R. Evid. 403	Evidence could show alternate perpetrator or other source of Victim’s sexual knowledge	Evidence probative for identity/alternative source; should have been admitted	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; convictions were weakly connected, highly prejudicial, and risked confusing jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Snyder, 932 P.2d 120 (Utah Ct. App.) (trial court must make factual findings when assessing reliability for recorded child statements)
State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings on admissibility)
State v. Hollen, 44 P.3d 794 (Utah) (reliability review involves legal correctness of sufficiency of facts)
State v. Cruz, 387 P.3d 618 (Utah Ct. App.) (rule 15.5 admissibility reviewed for correctness)
State v. Nguyen, 293 P.3d 236 (Utah) (videotaped child interviews may be more reliable than in-court testimony because they are closer in time)
State v. Lenaburg, 781 P.2d 432 (Utah) (fantastical or clearly incredible child statements can undermine reliability)
State v. Bredehoft, 966 P.2d 285 (Utah Ct. App.) (expert-notice statute and remedies discussed)
State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah) (limits on expert testimony about victim credibility/behaviors)
State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah) (rule 403 exclusion upheld where evidence is highly prejudicial and attenuated from issues on trial)