370 P.3d 580
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Paul Dubrae Waldoch was convicted of one count of object rape (first-degree felony) and two counts of forcible sexual abuse (second-degree felonies) after a two-day trial.
- Victim testified Waldoch put his finger(s) "into" her vagina; medical personnel documented abrasions on the labia and recorded "vaginal penetration with hand" on forensic forms.
- Defense emphasized forensic/expert evidence undermining penetration: exclusion from a saliva sample, PA note ambiguity, and defense expert testimony arguing lack of physical evidence of hymenal or vaginal penetration.
- Trial court seated a married couple from the venire (the wife served as an alternate and was dismissed before deliberations); the court gave several admonitions but omitted admonitions before some short recesses.
- Defense did not object on the record to certain issues (jury composition, some admonitions, and prosecutorial remarks), raising preservation questions on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Waldoch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of penetration for object rape | Victim testimony plus medical/nursing documentation supports penetration element | Evidence was insufficient because of forensic exclusions, report inconsistencies, and expert testimony denying physical penetration | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; credibility for jury to resolve (penetration satisfied) |
| Married jurors serving together | Seating married venire members did not prejudice defendant; only one spouse sat on final jury | Trial court erred by allowing husband and wife to serve together and failed to inquire about independent decision-making | Unpreserved; court rejects relief—no demonstrated prejudice; concurrence finds voir dire error but no prejudice shown |
| Failure to admonish jurors before short recesses | Multiple prior detailed admonitions mitigated harm; no record of juror misconduct | Trial court violated Rule 17(k) by omitting admonitions before some recesses, warranting reversal | Unpreserved; court finds violation not prejudicial given repeated admonitions and lack of record showing harm; conviction stands |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | No preserved objection; no record showing prejudicial remarks requiring reversal | Prosecutor appealed to jurors' emotions and court should have admonished jury to disregard | Unpreserved and inadequately briefed; court declines to address on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Simmons, 759 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1988) (definition of "penetration")
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rule for appellate claims)
- State v. Cram, 46 P.3d 230 (Utah 2002) (exceptions to preservation rule)
- State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (Utah 2012) (admonition failures and prejudice analysis)
- State v. Sessions, 342 P.3d 738 (Utah 2014) (requiring actual bias to show juror prejudice)
- State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (appellate briefing standards)
- Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1976) (due process right to an impartial jury)
- State v. Woolley, 810 P.2d 440 (Utah Ct.App. 1991) (juror impartiality as a mental attitude)
- State v. Ball, 685 P.2d 1055 (Utah 1984) (purpose of voir dire to uncover bias)
- Salt Lake City v. Tuero, 745 P.2d 1281 (Utah Ct.App. 1987) (voir dire as a tool to reveal prejudices)