State v. Whitaker, 374 P.3d 56

Defendant Jared Whitaker, the 12-year-old victim Jane’s stepfather, was charged after Jane testified he guided her hand to his penis while they lay back-to-back in his bed during a visit.
Jane said her palm was up, felt something "warm" and "soft," and her hand remained there about a minute; she then left the room and later reported the incident.
Defendant testified he was extremely tired, had limited memory of the night, claimed no recollection of the contact, and denied intent.
The bench trial hinged on the credibility of Jane and Defendant; the court found Jane credible and convicted Whitaker of aggravated sexual abuse of a child.
The court’s written findings focused on credibility and noted defendant "guided her hand to touch his sexual organ," but did not analyze or articulate evidence proving the requisite sexual intent element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Whitaker acted with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire	The physical act of guiding the victim’s hand to his penis permits an inference of sexual intent	The State presented only the physical contact; the evidence was consistent with involuntary or sleep-related conduct and did not prove sexual intent beyond a reasonable doubt	Reversed: the evidence was insufficient to infer intent beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Singh, 267 P.3d 281 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (affirming sexual-abuse conviction where circumstantial evidence supported intent)
In re D.M., 310 P.3d 741 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (delinquency adjudication for sexual abuse supported by circumstantial indicators of intent)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (verdict invalid if based on speculative inferences)
Spanish Fork City v. Bryan, 975 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (requiring evidence supporting each element beyond speculative inference)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (Due Process prohibits presumptions that shift burden to defendant)