Opinion ID: 1193843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: error in state's information

Text: ¶ 28 Finally, Thomas contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, asserting that the State's information incorrectly set out the law on Count II regarding the offense of Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child. He asserts that since the State failed to prove each and every element of its information, specifically those elements as contained in section 76-5-404.1(3)(f) & (g) [of the Utah Code], the trial court should have granted his motion for directed verdict. ¶ 29 However, we find that Thomas did not request a directed verdict on Count II, but only on Count I. This motion, denied by the trial court, was worded as follows: If we could, Your Honor, I would move the Court for a directed verdict specifically, Your Honor, in that I think the State has failed to prove, as far as elements of Count I ... failed to prove that on or about 4, July, 1995[,] ... the element of 4th of July, the date, Your Honor, I believe they failed to do that. The motion, though unsuccessful, dealt with elements of Count I alone; there was no mention made of any objections to elements of Count II. Absent any indication that this issue was raised at trial, it cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353, 1357 (Utah 1986) (citations omitted); see also Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996) (We decline to address these additional claims because of our general rule that `issues not raised at trial cannot be argued for the first time on appeal.' (quoting State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994))). ¶ 30 Furthermore, we have repeatedly held that failure to object at trial to alleged defects in the information constitutes waiver of the opportunity to challenge its contents on appeal. State v. John, 770 P.2d 994, 995 (Utah 1989); accord State v. Smith, 700 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Utah 1985); State v. Lairby, 699 P.2d 1187, 1192 (Utah 1984); see also State v. Marcum, 750 P.2d 599, 602 (Utah 1988) (finding waiver of claim of prejudicial variance between information and evidence when defendant did not object at trial). ¶ 31 For the foregoing reasons, Thomas has not only waived any issue dealing with the trial court's failure to grant a directed verdict regarding alleged errors in Count II of the information, but has also waived any issue dealing with alleged defects in the information. We therefore decline to address this issue. ¶ 32 In light of the foregoing analysis, we reject Thomas's contentions and affirm the judgment and conviction. ¶ 33 Associate Chief Justice DURHAM and Justice RUSSON concur in Chief Justice HOWE's opinion.