State v. Watkins, 2013 UT 28

Watkins was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a child (H.C.) under Utah Code §76-5-404.1(4)(h) based on occupying a “position of special trust” in relation to the victim.
The State argued that Watkins’s status as an “adult cohabitant of a parent” of the victim satisfied the aggravating element.
Watkins argued that occupying an enumerated position does not by itself prove a position of special trust or the ability to exercise undue influence.
The intermediate courts treated the enumerated position as automatic proof of a position of special trust.
The Utah Supreme Court held the statute is ambiguous and requires proof of both a position of authority and the ability to exercise undue influence, vacating the conviction and remanding for proceedings consistent with that interpretation.
The court relied on textual analysis and legislative history to reject Watkins’s interpretation and to adopt a reading where enumerated positions indicate authority but not automatic “special trust.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enumerated position ‘adult cohabitant of a parent’ alone satisfies special-trust element	State contends enumerated positions prove position of special trust	Watkins contends enumerated positions are illustrative, not definitive	Statute ambiguous; enumeration does not alone prove both elements
Whether the statute is ambiguous and what interpretive approach governs	State argues for interpretation aligning enumeration with authority and undue influence	Watkins argues for a narrower reading	Statute ambiguous; legislative history supports requiring both authority and undue influence
What elements are required to prove ‘position of special trust’ under §76-5-404.1(4)(h)	Enumeration suffices to establish authority and influence	Must prove both authority and undue influence	State must prove both elements; enumeration alone not enough; reverse/remand warranted

Summit Operating, LLC v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 2012 UT 91 (Utah 2012) (statutory interpretation requires plain language first; harmony of statute)
State v. Martinez, 2002 UT 80 (Utah 2002) (interpretation of statutory language; no deference to appellate conclusions)
Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 2011 UT 50 (Utah 2011) (look to legislative history when language is ambiguous)
Wilcox v. CSX Corp., 2003 UT 21 (Utah 2003) (ambiguous statutes may warrant historical/contextual analysis)
State v. Tanner, 2009 UT App 326 (Utah App. 2009) (enumerated position of authority can support enhancement even if not enumerated as special trust)
Beason, 2000 UT App 109 (Utah App. 2000) (position of authority plus ability to exercise undue influence may suffice)
Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669 (Utah 1985) (cohabitation concept discussed in different context)
State v. Visser, 2000 UT 88 (Utah 2000) (standard of review for certiorari and statutory questions)