State v Cady

Cady appealed his object rape conviction. The panel affirmed. It held evidence the victim said “unh-unh”, pushed Cady away from her, held up her pants when Cady tried to lower them cried and curled up in ball was sufficient to prove nonconsent, the victim’s testimony was not inherently improbable, and Cady did not demonstrate any internal inconsistencies. It held the evidence was sufficient to find Cady recklessly disregarded victim’s nonconsent as he told the police he heard her say no and acknowledged the body language was indecisive. It finally held there was no inconsistent verdicts as the jury acquitted Cady of two counts of rape and there was no evidence of saying no in the other incidents and the body language and resistance as also different from the events which led to Cady’s conviction and the jury could have found the evidence insufficient or that consent occurred in the other incidents.

State v Roberts

Roberts appealed his child sex abuse convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no error in admitting victim’s forensic interview into evidence as the interview did not involve leading questions, victim demonstrated capacity to distinguish truth and falsehood, the drawing s used were done at victim’s request and lack of follow-up questions went to weight not admissibility and victim’s answers alleviated any concerns about the techniques used; the year delay between abuse and interview did not change the outcome particularly as the trial was five years after the abuse and the interview may have been more accurate; and the alleged incredible statements were consistent with a six year old child’s methods of speaking. It affirmed the district court’s denial of Roberts’ motion to exclude a social worker’s testimony for lack of notice the worker would be testifying as an expert as Utah code 77-17-13 provides the remedy in those circumstances is a continuance absent bad faith (which did not happen here) and Roberts did not seek a continuance and trial counsel had valid tactical reasons not to seek a continuance and thus was not ineffective. It finally held that there was no error in excluding evidence about victim’ grandfather being a registered sex offender because there was no evidence connecting grandfather to the crimes charged and prejudice substantially outweighed any relevance.