Opinion ID: 1414169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admissibility of other acts of sexual abuse as aggravating circumstances

Text: From the earliest days of statehood, this Court has rigorously applied the rule that evidence of a defendant's prior crimes or bad acts is not admissible to show criminal propensity in a criminal case. Such evidence may be admitted only if the evidence has a very high degree of probativeness with respect to a particular element of the crime charged and will not otherwise result in undue prejudice. See, e.g., State v. Huggins, 18 Utah 2d 219, 418 P.2d 978 (1966); State v. Winget, 6 Utah 2d 243, 310 P.2d 738 (1957); State v. Williams, 36 Utah 273, 103 P. 250 (1909). That rule has been carried into our present rules of evidence by Rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence, which states, Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. However, Rule 404(b) also states that prior crimes evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. (Emphasis added.) Thus, evidence may be adduced to establish any of the constitutive elements of the crime of which the defendant is accused in the case on trial, even though such evidence tends to prove that the defendant has committed other crimes. State v. Peterson, 83 Utah 74, 80, 27 P.2d 20, 22 (1933). See also People v. Thompson, 27 Cal.3d 303, 314-21, 611 P.2d 883, 887-92, 165 Cal. Rptr. 289, 293-98 (1980); State v. Jenkins, 158 Conn. 149, 152-53, 256 A.2d 223, 225 (1969); Bedgood v. State, 477 N.E.2d 869, 872-73 (Ind. 1985); State v. Conner, 314 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa 1982); State v. Knecht, 181 Neb. 149, 156-57, 147 N.W.2d 167, 173 (1966); State v. Lemon, 497 A.2d 713, 721 (R.I. 1985); State v. Pacheco, 712 P.2d 192, 195 (Utah 1985). In addition, evidence of other crimes has been held admissible where the offense is so linked with the crime charged in point of time and circumstance that one cannot be shown without proving the other. See State v. Gillies, 40 Utah 541, 546-47, 123 P. 93, 95 (1912). Defendant was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Section 76-5-404.1(3)(g) defines aggravated sexual abuse as the commission of one act of sexual abuse of a child plus more than five separate acts, which if committed in Utah would constitute an offense described in this chapter, and were committed at the same time, or during the same course of conduct, or before or after the instant offense. Thus, the challenged testimony was admissible to prove an element of the crime charged under a standard rule of evidence.