State v. Von Niederhausern
427 P.3d 1277
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Lamont S. Von Niederhausern was charged with two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery for touching his adult daughter (Incidents Two and Three); the State sought to admit evidence of two other uncharged similar acts (Incidents One and Four) under Utah R. Evid. 404(b).
- Incident One: Victim awoke on a couch to Defendant kissing/licking her neck and touching near her bra; Husband interrupted and Defendant fled; no charge for that incident.
- Incident Two (Count One): Defendant stayed overnight uninvited, viewed porn, masturbated, spoke sexually to the children, and later pressed his erect penis against Victim’s buttocks and touched her breasts before fleeing; charged.
- Incident Three (Count Two): During a family visit after being allowed to stay due to snow, Defendant reached around Victim, touched her breasts and kissed/licked her neck despite her protests; charged.
- Incident Four: A few days after Incident Three, at a family home, Defendant grabbed Victim from behind, touched pelvis and breasts, thrust and kissed her neck; family members observed parts of the encounter; uncharged.
- Trial court admitted Incidents One and Four under Rule 404(b) for noncharacter purposes (limiting instruction given); court also instructed the jury using dictionary definitions for the statutory terms “affront” and “alarm”; jury convicted; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Von Niederhausern) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts under Utah R. Evid. 404(b) | Other incidents show intent, absence of mistake, plan, and complete the narrative; thus admissible for noncharacter purposes | Admission was an abuse of discretion; other-acts were impermissible propensity evidence and prejudicial | Court affirmed: evidence admitted for noncharacter purposes (intent, absence of mistake); relevance met and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Jury instruction definitions for “affront” and “alarm” (ineffective assistance claim) | Dictionary definitions properly clarified statutory terms; instruction correctly stated the law | Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to overly broad dictionary definitions, causing prejudice | Court affirmed: counsel not deficient (instructions correctly stated law and precedent permits dictionaries) and no prejudice given overwhelming evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (clarifies appellate review of evidentiary rulings and rejects rigid "scrupulous examination" approach to 404(b) analysis)
- State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (articulates criteria for admissibility of other-act evidence under rule 404(b))
- State v. Burke, 256 P.3d 1102 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (other acts may show intent and are not admissible solely to prove propensity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Lee, 318 P.3d 1164 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (failure to object to correct statement of law in jury instructions is not deficient performance)
- State v. Souza, 846 P.2d 1313 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (use of dictionary definitions in jury instructions can be acceptable to clarify statutory terms)