Opinion ID: 1130843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence of sodomy used at trial

Text: Defendant next objects to the use at trial of his statement that he and Church engaged in sodomy. This objection stems from the fact that defendant was originally charged with forcible sodomy, but the charge was dismissed at the preliminary hearing due to lack of independent evidence besides his own statement. [24] Since the forcible sodomy charge was dismissed, defendant argues, use of the sodomy evidence was prejudicial and resulted in reversible error. Before addressing defendant's argument, we note the applicable standard of review. Defendant's challenge to the admissibility of the sodomy evidence is premised on rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence: In reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court's determination unless it was an abuse of discretion. To state the matter more precisely, we review the trial court's 403 ruling admitting or denying admission to evidence by deciding whether, as a matter of law, the trial court's decision that the unfairly prejudicial potential of the evidence outweighs [or does not outweigh] its probativeness was beyond the limits of reasonability. Of course, like any other evidentiary ruling, an erroneous decision to admit or exclude evidence based on rule 403 cannot result in reversible error unless the error is harmful. [25] Defendant is correct in his assessment that a person may not be convicted for a crime based solely on an incriminating statement he or she made. [26] However, he was not convicted of sodomy or forcible sodomy; he was convicted of first degree murder. A person is guilty of capital murder under section 76-5-202 if he or she intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of seventeen different aggravating circumstances. [27] One of the aggravating circumstances defendant was charged with and convicted of was causing the death of the victim while defendant was engaged in the commission of or flight after committing kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping. [28] Based on that charge in the information, both the magistrate who presided over the preliminary hearing and the trial judge ruled that evidence of sodomy could be received to establish the existence of aggravated kidnapping, because sodomy is a predicate act to a finding of guilt under Utah's aggravated kidnapping statute. [29] The trial court also relied on our decision in State v. Bishop [30] to support its ruling on this matter. In Bishop, this court rejected the defendant's assertion that aggravating circumstances are a part of the corpus delicti of first degree murder and therefore must be proven with information other than the defendant's confession or admission. [31] Here, defendant's statements concerning sodomy were properly admitted to establish the elements of aggravated kidnapping, which is itself an aggravating circumstance of first degree murder. Hence, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the decision of the trial court on this issue.