Opinion ID: 2569287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the elements instruction to the jury

Text: ¶ 32 Reed's last point on appeal depends on the statutory language of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1, which reads, in relevant part: (1) A person commits sexual abuse of a child if, under circumstances not amounting to rape of a child, object rape of a child, sodomy upon a child, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, the actor touches. . . . (Emphasis added.) Reed argues that the not amounting to language of the statute obligated the State to establish a primary offense that did not amount to sodomy, or attempted sodomy, in order to convict him of aggravated sexual abuse. In other words, Reed asserts that the State must affirmatively establish lack of sodomy as an element of the aggravated sexual abuse offense. Following this premise, Reed contends that the trial court gave the jury an improper elements instruction regarding the aggravated sexual abuse charge by omitting the element that the primary offense could not amount to sodomy. ¶ 33 In State v. Peters, 550 P.2d 199 (Utah 1976), we spoke directly to this issue. Analyzing the language of a forcible sexual abuse statute in effect at the time, which contained the same not amounting to expression as the current statute, we addressed the identical argument Reed presents to us today: Counsel would have us require the State to prove there was no rape,a greater crime,in order to prove a lesser crime. Such a course, in logic, obviously is inimical to the interests of the accused. It is our belief and conclusion that the only rule that is realistic and makes sense is that the State need prove only that which it has charged and should be able to ignore proof as to lack of any greater offense to which the accused just may be required to respond. Id. at 199-200; see also State v. Montoya, 910 P.2d 441, 445 (Utah Ct.App. 1996) (stating that [t]he primary purpose of the `under the circumstances not amounting to' language was likely to encourage criminal punishment under those greater crimes when the evidence in a particular case warrants it), cert. denied, 919 P.2d 1208 (Utah 1996). The Peters rationale is dispositive of this argument and Reed's challenge is without merit.