State v. Steffen
468 P.3d 568
Utah Ct. App.2020Background:
- Steffen was charged with multiple sexual-offense counts based largely on allegations by his girlfriend’s daughter, A.Z.; trial proceeded after preliminary hearing testimony.
- Defense sought to admit evidence under Utah R. Evid. 412 that A.Z.’s grandfather had previously sexually abused her (to rebut the sexual-innocence inference and later to rebut a claimed causal link to A.Z.’s self-harm); the district court initially excluded that evidence under rule 412.
- The State failed to timely disclose that A.Z.’s mother had directed A.Z. not to report a lewd act; the court ordered partial disclosure of paralegal notes and later declared a mistrial in the first trial for nondisclosure.
- The State produced factual portions of interview notes but withheld core opinion work product; Steffen moved to compel full notes and was denied; the court later ordered the defense to disclose certain investigator notes if used to impeach.
- During the retrial the State accidentally played a short out-of-context recording in which A.Z. said “I cut”; Steffen moved for mistrial/dismissal; the court declined but allowed admission of the previously excluded prior-abuse evidence to rebut any causal inference from the cutting statement (defense did not present it).
- Jury convicted Steffen on five counts; he appealed challenging exclusion of prior-abuse evidence, two discovery rulings under Utah R. Crim. P. 16, and denial of mistrial; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Steffen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of prior sexual-abuse evidence under Utah R. Evid. 412 | Rule 412 properly excludes prior-abuse history; exceptions inapplicable | Prior-abuse evidence was essential to rebut sexual-innocence inference and to rebut causal link to self-harm (Sixth Amendment right to present defense) | Affirmed: exclusion did not violate constitutional rights; evidence not essential and probative value limited |
| Motion to compel State’s full interview notes after partial disclosure | Disclosure complied with court order; core opinion work product remains protected | Partial disclosure waived work-product protection for all prosecution interview notes; defense entitled to full notes | Affirmed: providing factual excerpts per court order did not waive core opinion work product; denial of full-compel proper |
| Court order requiring defense to disclose investigator notes (State’s motion to compel) | Good cause: materiality and waiver where defense places witness credibility at issue | Order overbroad and would require disclosure of core opinion work product | Order was overbroad as written but harmless because defense never used the notes to impeach; no reversible error |
| Denial of mistrial/dismissal after accidental playing of A.Z.’s “I cut” statement | Statement was inadvertent, brief, and innocuous in context; court provided remedy | Statement was prejudicial and cumulative due-process violations warranted mistrial/dismissal | Affirmed: statement inadvertent, passing, relatively innocuous; district court offered appropriate remedies and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (sets standard for when exclusion under rule 412 violates right to present a defense)
- Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (discussed interest balancing under rules limiting defendant’s evidence)
- Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 (2013) (rejects requirement of case-by-case balancing to permit application of rape-shield rules)
- State v. Marks, 262 P.3d 13 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (discusses sexual-innocence inference and weighing prior-conduct evidence)
- State v. Ashby, 357 P.3d 554 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (identifies factors for probative value: age and similarity of prior conduct)
- State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987) (prosecution’s ongoing disclosure obligations when it agrees to produce material)
- In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (work-product waiver limited to factual/non-opinion work product)
- Southern Utah Wilderness All. v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 200 P.3d 643 (Utah 2008) (distinguishes factual from core/opinion work product)
- State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (rules on inadmissibility of prior rape claims under rule 412)
- State v. Cuttler, 367 P.3d 981 (Utah 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)