Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Utah lawmakers propose using prior sex crime allegations as evidence in court.
- The resolution aims to align state law with federal standards, applying uniform rules regardless of victim age.
- Defense attorneys express concerns about potential unfair convictions, while prosecutors support the change.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah lawmakers want to make previous allegations of sex crimes admissible in court, expanding a policy that allows such evidence only when the victim is under the age of 14.
SJR8 sponsor Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Highland, told a House committee Monday that the policy to admit allegations of previous sexual assault in all cases would align the state with federal law and end what a law professor called an "artificial distinction" in state law allowing different types of evidence to be admitted based on the victim's age.
"Today in Utah, if the victim is 13 years of age or younger, one set of evidentiary rules apply. But if the victim is 14 or 24 or 64 or 84, we apply an entirely different set of rules," University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell told members of the House Judiciary Committee. "All Senate Joint Resolution 8 does is say, 'Let's follow ... what the federal government has done for three decades now, what most states have long done ... so all victims in Utah, regardless of age, deserve to have the same rules of evidence apply.'"
The resolution allows that in criminal sexual assault cases, "the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other acts of sexual assault" to be considered "on any matter to which the evidence is relevant, including to prove a propensity to commit the crime charged."
The House Judiciary Committee advanced the resolution on a 7-1 vote, after it cleared the Senate unanimously last month. The policy will take effect immediately if at least two-thirds of representatives approve it before the Legislature adjourns Friday.
Not everyone agreed with the proposal, however, as defense attorneys argued it would make it easier to convict defendants based on evidence — even if the previous conduct didn't result in a conviction or criminal charges. Mark Moffat, a defense attorney who spoke on behalf of the Defense Bar, called the bill a "significant alteration" of court rules that could sway juries against defendants.
"These types of behaviors that can be admitted here can be old offenses, the uncharged, uninvestigated, unconvicted conduct," he said. "And in a trial, a defendant ... who is in a trial defending a case that could put him in prison for years and years and years is faced not only with the prospect of defending the charge against him, but defending other acts that have never been charged."
Moffat argued court rules already allow prior evidence to be admitted "if it shows a pattern of conduct," but said SJR8 "doesn't necessarily relate to whether there's a pattern or whether it's relevant to motive or intent."
"This allows that stuff to come in to say, 'He did it before; he must have done it this time.' And that is significant," he added.
Prosecutors made the opposite argument, speaking in favor of the proposal as a change that would make it easier to enact justice for victims of sexual crimes.
"I can tell you, as a prosecutor — I've spent a lot of my career in prosecuting sex crimes — that there's nothing more frustrating for me or for victims (than) to sit through a trial and know you've got this ... relevant evidence that this defendant sexually abused other victims in the past and not be able to present that to the jury," said Ryan McBride, who leads the General Crimes Division of the Utah County Attorney's Office.
Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray also spoke in favor of the proposal, as did a pair of prosecutors from Davis County.
Rep. Tyler Clancy, R-Provo, the floor sponsor of Brammer's resolution, said the change could benefit victims of sexual assault — many of whom already face scrutiny when they come forward to report misconduct.
"This is an opportunity for when the one victim who is confident enough to withstand the barrage of attacks and degradation that you know is going to come forward as you come forward in one of these cases, that we can say that a pattern of behavior exists, and I think that's super important," he said.
Supreme Court reform advances
The same committee on Monday also advanced a proposal to give the governor power to pick the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, subject to the advice and consent of the state Senate. The bill has faced rare pushback from the courts, and Chief Justice Matthew Durrant called it "an attempt to influence and exert legislative control over the chief justice."
SB296 is one of several proposals that are perceived to be in response to a pair of Supreme Court rulings last summer that angered Republican lawmakers. Those lawmakers have denied seeking revenge against the judiciary, and Senate Majority Whip Chris Wilson, R-Logan, told the House Judiciary Committee his bill is intended to give the public more oversight into the process of selecting who leads the high court.
Brammer, who presented SB296 alongside Wilson, also cited what he said is a drop in productivity in court rulings in recent years.
SB296 advanced following a 7-2 vote, setting it up for final approval later this week. The bill is backed by top Republicans in the House and Senate, suggesting it's a priority for leadership this session.
