477 P.3d 1251
Utah2020Background
- Michael Stricklan, a stepfather, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of his 10-year-old stepdaughter (E.D.) based primarily on E.D.’s two out-of-court statements that Stricklan touched her breasts and buttocks.
- At trial E.D. recanted, testifying she had lied to police and that Stricklan did not touch her; she nonetheless confirmed on the stand that she had previously told officers the abuse allegations.
- Police and other witnesses testified to circumstantial facts: officers observed a distraught household early morning, Stricklan appeared intoxicated, mother confronted Stricklan, Stricklan told someone by phone he had “acted inappropriately,” and Stricklan told police he did not believe E.D. was making things up but had no clear recollection of the night.
- The district court denied Stricklan’s motions for directed verdict and to arrest judgment; it found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to submit the credibility dispute to the jury.
- The Utah Supreme Court majority affirmed, holding that a jury could weigh E.D.’s prior inconsistent statements alongside other circumstantial evidence and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; a Robbins-type inherent-improbability argument was unpreserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stricklan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence given recantation | Prior inconsistent statements admissible; jury can weigh credibility with other evidence | Conviction rests on a single uncorroborated out-of-court statement (Webb/Ramsey), so evidence insufficient | Affirmed — jury properly weighed prior statements plus circumstantial evidence; not solely reliant on uncorroborated hearsay |
| Corroboration requirement for prior inconsistent statements | Other circumstantial evidence (mother’s reaction, Stricklan’s phone statement, his equivocal statements to police, timing/location) corroborated the prior statements | Those facts only show reaction to an allegation and do not corroborate truth of the allegation | Affirmed — court viewed totality of evidence as sufficient corroboration for jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Proof of intent (to arouse or cause pain) | Intent can be inferred circumstantially from nature of touching (breasts and buttocks), presence in child’s room after bedtime, and Stricklan’s statements/behavior | No direct evidence; inference of intent is speculative without more context | Affirmed — intent may be inferred from circumstantial facts and was reasonably for the jury to find |
| Inherent improbability of victim’s testimony (Robbins) | N/A at trial | E.D.’s in-court recantation was inherently improbable and trial testimony should be disregarded | Not reached on merits — issue not preserved below; conviction affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webb, 779 P.2d 1108 (Utah 1989) (reversed conviction based largely on an out-of-court statement of an 18‑month‑old; stated that a single uncorroborated hearsay statement is not sufficient)
- State v. Ramsey, 782 P.2d 480 (Utah 1989) (held a conviction cannot rest entirely on an unsworn out‑of‑court statement denied at trial)
- United States v. Orrico, 599 F.2d 113 (6th Cir. 1979) (observed that prior inconsistent statements rarely suffice alone to prove guilt; influenced Webb/Ramsey)
- State v. Seale, 853 P.2d 862 (Utah 1993) (upheld conviction where jury could weigh videotaped prior statements against in-court testimony and infer motive to recant)
- State v. Robbins, 210 P.3d 288 (Utah 2009) (discussed doctrine of inherent improbability as ground to overturn convictions when testimony cannot plausibly support an element)
- State v. Giant, 37 P.3d 49 (Mont. 2001) (analyzed interplay between admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and sufficiency review; emphasized assessing reliability/corroboration)