State v. Tulley, 428 P.3d 1005

Background

Tulley, a sex-offender program attendee, assaulted a 71‑year‑old Victim after claiming Victim held a knife to his forehead and groped him while Tulley slept; Victim sustained severe facial fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and significant bleeding.
Tulley was charged with aggravated abuse of a vulnerable adult, failure to register as a sex offender (to which he pled guilty), and interference with an arresting officer; jury convicted him of reckless aggravated abuse and interference.
Before trial Tulley sought to admit Victim's decades‑old prior sexual‑offense convictions and recent explicit phone calls to Tulley’s sister to show motive, propensity, and reasonableness of Tulley’s response; the court excluded most as unfairly prejudicial but allowed a limited, "sanitized" showing of sexual‑preference confusion (which Tulley did not ultimately introduce).
Tulley requested a jury instruction explicitly stating that "forcible felony" includes forcible sexual abuse; the court declined to add that explicit language but gave the standard self‑defense instruction permitting deadly force only when reasonably necessary to prevent death/serious bodily injury or the commission of a forcible felony.
Tulley challenged (1) evidentiary rulings, (2) the jury instruction omission, (3) the vagueness of the aggravated‑abuse statute’s definition of "serious physical injury," and (4) Utah’s habitual violent offender statute as cruel and unusual/double jeopardy; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all issues.

Issues

Issue	Tulley’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of Victim’s prior sexual misconduct	Prior convictions and explicit phone calls were relevant to Victim’s motive, sexual propensity toward Tulley, and reasonableness of Tulley’s defensive belief	Prior acts were remote, factually dissimilar, highly prejudicial, and risked confusing the jury; limited sanitized evidence sufficient	Court: No abuse of discretion excluding most evidence under Rules 404(b)/403; allowed limited sanitized evidence (which Tulley did not use)
Jury instruction re: "forcible felony" including forcible sexual abuse	Jury should be told forcible sexual abuse counts as a forcible felony for self‑defense/deadly‑force instruction	Statute’s list is exemplary but non‑exhaustive; only crimes creating substantial danger of death/serious bodily injury qualify for deadly‑force justification	Court: Instruction correct as given; cannot state that forcible sexual abuse always presents risk sufficient to justify deadly force; Tulley’s proposed wording would misstate law
Vagueness of "serious physical injury" in aggravated‑abuse statute (facial and as‑applied)	Statute’s phrase "seriously impairs a vulnerable adult’s health" is vague; Johnson supports facial invalidation of indeterminate standards	Statute focuses on real‑world conduct and injuries; Tulley’s conduct (serious injuries, fractures, brain injury) clearly put him on notice and guided enforcement	Court: Johnson inapplicable (statute requires fact‑based analysis, not categorical approach); statute not vague as applied to Tulley; no facial invalidation shown
Habitual violent offender enhancement (cruel & unusual / double jeopardy)	Elevating a 3rd‑degree felony to 1st‑degree sentencing category based on priors is disproportionate and violates Utah Constitution’s protections	Enhancement is statutory, applied after finding priors beyond reasonable doubt; Tulley’s priors and violent history make enhancement constitutionally permissible	Court: No violation of Utah cruel and unusual or double jeopardy clauses; enhancement did not shock the moral conscience under precedent

Key Cases Cited

Arnold v. Grigsby, 417 P.3d 606 (Utah 2018) (standard of review for evidentiary admissibility appeals)
State v. Lowther, 398 P.3d 1032 (Utah 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (definition of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause; guidance on categorical approach and limits of that decision)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach in prior‑conviction analysis)
Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vs. as‑applied vagueness analysis)
State v. Holm, 137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006) (void‑for‑vagueness standards under Utah law)
State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342 (Utah 2001) (Utah standard for cruel and unusual/proportionality review)
State v. Houston, 353 P.3d 55 (Utah 2015) (recent discussion and standard for proportionality under Utah Constitution)