State v. LowderState v. Lowder
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Durham
This is an appeal from a conviction of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first degree felony, in violation of
While in the sole care of defendant, the victim, whо was less than two years old, suffered twelve specific injuries, eight of them to her genital area and buttocks. The trial court fоund that defendant had touched the victim’s buttocks and genitalia, that he “took extreme indecent liberties” with her with the intent to cаuse her substantial bodily pain, and that he caused her bodily injury. The court further found that there was no intent to cause emotionаl pain and no intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. The dispositive question is therefore whether the child sexual abuse statute requires any sexual intent or motivation by the perpetrator as an essential element of thе crime. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review for correctness. State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Utah 1993).
(1) A person commits sexual abuse of a child if ... the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child ... or otherwise takes indecent liberties with a child ... with intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain ... or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person....
Defendant argues that the “touching” prohibited by the statute must be “sexual touching” and that there inheres in the phrase “otherwise takes indecent liberties” a legislative requirement that only sexually motivated conduct is prohibited. The plain languagе of the statute does not establish such a requirement.
In
State v. Bishop,
753 P.2d 439 (Utah 1988),
overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Menzies,
889 P.2d 393 (1994), we considered a related but inverse argument, namely, that the “indecent liberties” language required a touching. We held that the
Defendant argues that the legislature could not have intended to label and punish “merely” assaultive behavior with no sexual intent, as child sexual abuse. This argument is unpersuasive in light of the plain language of the statute, which appears to do precisely that when the assault is directed to the sexual parts of a child’s body. The State’s brief refers to the “legislature’s evident choice to penalize persons who injure the ‘private parts’ of children’s bodies more severely thаn it does those who otherwise injure children .... That choice seems fundamentally reasonable.” We are constrained to agree that such a choice is within the proper province of legislative policy making.
In light of the foregoing cоnclusion about the meaning of the statute, we need not treat defendant’s challenges to the trial court’s findings regarding indecеnt liberties. Defendant’s conviction may be sustained solely on the trial court’s findings, entirely supported by the record, that he touсhed the victim’s buttocks and genitalia with the intent to cause substantial bodily pain and did cause bodily injury. Likewise, defendant’s argument that he should have been convicted of the lesser offense of child abuse is without merit. Utah’s child abuse statute, Utah Code Ann., § 76-5-109 (Supp.1994), requires only general physical injury to a child’s body (some forms of the offense do not even require touching, such as subsection 76-5-109(l)(с)(vii), (x), which refers to any conduct resulting in developmental delay, starvation, or failure to thrive).
Two remaining points raised by defendant merit comment. The first is that the literal construction of the statute we follow here might permit prosecution for child sexual abuse of any adult who strikes a child on the buttocks. The point is troublesome and is certаinly one the legislature might usefully address. It has no application to defendant’s conviction, however, in light of the severity and nаture of the injuries he inflicted on his victim. The second issue relates to the claimed disproportionality of the minimum mandatory sеntence required for child sexual abuse. Again, we acknowledge the legitimacy of the concern. A defendant convicted of causing far more serious injuries under the general child abuse statute (involving, for example, broken bones or permаnent injury) would be subject at the maximum to sentencing for a second degree felony.
Defendant’s conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual abuse are affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN, C.J., STEWART, A.C.J., and HOWE and RUSSON, JJ., concur.