State v. Verde
2012 UT 60
| Utah | 2012Background
- Verde was charged in 2005 with sexual abuse of a 12-year-old NH; trial included admission of two prior uncharged sexual assaults by Verde.
- State moved in limine to admit testimony from three men about past sexual assaults; two were admitted to prove specific intent and possibly pattern of behavior.
- NH testified about the 2008 alleged abuse; the State also presented evidence of Verde's alleged misconduct with two 18-year-olds in 2002 and 2004.
- Verde testified, denied touching NH, and offered credibility attacks on NH; the jury convicted Verde as charged.
- Court of Appeals affirmed admission of the 404(b) evidence for intent or pattern; Supreme Court reversed on intent, remanding for new trial and leaving open the possibility under doctrine of chances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 404(b) admissible to prove specific intent where not-guilty plea is at issue? | State: 404(b) evidence demonstrates Verde's intent given not-guilty plea. | Verde: not-guilty plea does not justify admissibility for intent; evidence is improper character inference. | No; 404(b) cannot be used to establish specific intent. |
| Can 404(b) evidence show a 'plan' to entice and abuse young men? | State: evidence shows Verde's plan via past acts with adults to commit similar misconduct. | Verde: evidence simply shows propensity, not a unified plan. | No; not admissible as a plan. |
| May 404(b) evidence rebut fabrication under the doctrine of chances? | State: prior acts corroborate that NH's testimony is not fabricated. | Verde: evidence is improper propensity evidence; doctrine of chances should be narrowly applied. | Not affirmatively; remand with guidance to apply the doctrine of chances with specified four elements. |
| Did the 'not guilty rule' govern the admissibility of 404(b) evidence in Utah courts, and was it repudiated? | State relied on not-guilty rule to justify admission. | Verde: not-guilty rule is flawed and too broad; requires threshold analysis of purpose. | Repudiated; threshold analysis required, with proper balancing under 404(b) and 403. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57 (Utah) (abuse of discretion review; 404(b) admissibility; emphasis on proper purpose)
- State v. Featherson, 781 P.2d 424 (Utah) (common plan evidence; admissibility limits under 404(b))
- State v. Bradley, 2002 UT App 848 (Utah) (doctrine of chances; fabrication defense context)
- State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59 (Utah) (pattern of behavior; probative value of uncharged acts)
- State v. Ewoldt, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646; 867 P.2d 757 (Cal. 1994) (plan evidence standard; liberalization rejected by Utah)
- Tassell, 36 Cal.3d 77; 201 Cal.Rptr. 567; 679 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1984) (plan evidence before Ewoldt)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1997) (narrative completeness; discretion to accept stipulation)
- People v. Ewoldt, 867 P.2d 757 (Cal. 1994) (classic plan rule; overruled Tassell in part)