State v. Watkins
250 P.3d 1019
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Watkins lived with Father and Stepmother and their children; Child, a ten-year-old, visited regularly.
- In Oct 2008, after Watkins drank heavily, Child woke to Watkins in her bed, kissing her head and touching her buttocks, then Watkins left, returned, and gave her $100 afterward.
- Child disclosed the incident to Stepmother, Father, and police; Watkins was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child with a claimed position of special trust.
- Trial court denied Watkins's motion to dismiss, allowing the jury to hear intent evidence; Watkins was convicted.
- Watkins later sought arrest of judgment/new trial based on Stepmother–Sister text messages; trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the special trust element | Watkins argues no cohabitant relationship to Child's parent. | Watkins argues no statutory/defined special-trust position. | Sufficient evidence supported special trust as a resident cohabitant. |
| Intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire | Evidence shows intent; no alternative explanation necessitating reasonable doubt. | No clear intent proven; room entry could be non-sexual. | Sufficient evidence supported intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire; jury could decide. |
| New trial based on Stepmother–Sister texts | Text messages could reveal truthful account and support new-trial relief. | Messages are non-determinative, cumulative, and not probative of claimed intent. | Abuse of discretion not shown; new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tanner, 2009 UT App 326, 221 P.3d 901 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (defines two avenues to establish position of special trust)
- State v. Rowley, 2008 UT App 233, 189 P.3d 109 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (supports scope of special-trust concept and definitions)
- Keene v. Bonser, 2005 UT App 37, 107 P.3d 693 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (discusses context-specific meaning of cohabitant)
- State v. Hall, 946 P.2d 712 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (authorizes inference of intent from conduct and circumstances)
- State v. Rudolph, 970 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1998) (intent in burglary may be formed at entry or thereafter)
- State v. Tueller, 2001 UT App 317, 37 P.3d 1180 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (addresses inferences of sexual intent from actions)