State v. Titus
286 P.3d 941
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Titus was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of lewdness involving a child in a private place.
- Evidence showed Titus exposed his genitals in the presence of two boys under 14 at Titus’s home; no touching occurred.
- State’s theory required proving that the nudity occurred under circumstances likely to affront or alarm, or with intent to arouse/gratify.
- Two trial witnesses (neighbors) testified about Titus’s nudity and his conduct toward the boys in Titus’s home.
- The trial court found the witnesses credible and concluded Titus’s conduct would likely affront or alarm the children.
- Titus appealed alleging insufficiency of evidence and inadequate findings; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Titus contends evidence is insufficient to show affront/alarm under statute. | Titus argues nudity in private home without admission of intent to arouse cannot sustain conviction. | Evidence supports the verdict; no clear weight of evidence error. |
| Adequacy of findings | Finding detail was insufficient to support judgment. | Trial court failed to provide explicit findings addressing knowledge of affront/alarm. | Findings adequate; any preserved challenge waived; affirm. |
| Preservation of challenge to findings | Failure to request more detailed findings should be excused; rule 52(a) applies to sufficiency, not findings. | Defendant did not preserve adequacy-of-finding challenge by objecting below. | Titus waived the challenge; no plain error established. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Briggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008) (sufficiency review for bench trials; clearly erroneous findings standard)
- State v. Gordon, 84 P.3d 1167 (Utah 2004) (sufficiency standard; deference to trial court credibility)
- State v. Goodman, 763 P.2d 786 (Utah 1988) (standard for reviewing credibility and inferential findings)
- State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (rejects speculative inferences about guilt)
- 438 Main Street v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation/detailed findings requirement for adequacy challenges)
- In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (clarifies rule 52 and findings adequacy; waiver consequences)
- Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) (assumes findings if record lacks explicit findings)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error standard and prejudice discussed)