Representative Clancy urged the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of a proposed joint resolution that would allow a judge to admit documented prior sexual‑assault reports and similar evidence to show a pattern of behavior in sexual‑assault trials. The committee voted to favorably recommend the draft resolution to the full legislature.

The resolution would add a specified exception in the Utah rules of evidence to permit the admission — subject to judicial gatekeeping — of prior sexual‑assault evidence, including documented reports that did not lead to conviction, when the prosecution makes a detailed proffer. Supporters said the change mirrors federal practice and helps juries weigh credibility when offenses occur in private settings.

Supporters told the committee the measure is narrowly tailored and preserves safeguards. "What this resolution will do is to allow prior sexual assaults to be admitted as evidence in sexual‑assault trials," Representative Clancy said, and emphasized that judges retain discretion to exclude evidence that is unduly prejudicial. Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor and former U.S. district judge, told the committee his federal‑court experience shows the rule has worked and that trial judges already have the tools under rules 104 and 403 to limit abusive uses. "In 31 years of experience in the federal system, I haven't seen that circus‑like atmosphere," Cassell said.

Prosecutors and special‑victims staff described courtroom limits on proving assaults that occur in private and urged the committee to give juries fuller factual context. Adam Palmer, a deputy Utah County attorney and special victims prosecutor, said jurors often lack corroborating details in closed‑door offenses and that pattern evidence can help jurors evaluate credibility. "These are inherently crimes of secrecy," Palmer said.

Opponents — led by the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association and the Utah Defense Lawyers Association — argued the rule would enable inadmissible propensity evidence and risk convicting defendants on the basis of untested allegations. Richard Morrow, executive director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, called the proposal a “dangerous slippery slope” that departs from long‑standing rule 404 protections. Mark Moffitt of the Utah Defense Lawyers Association warned the measure would allow uncharged or uninvestigated allegations to be offered at trial and urged a higher evidentiary threshold and an adversary pretrial hearing.

Committee discussion focused on guardrails: several members asked whether an added requirement for an evidentiary hearing or a “clear and convincing” proffer should be required before admitting prior accounts. Defense witnesses asked for explicit pretrial vetting; prosecutors and supporters said courts already follow a proffer/test standard and the measure merely clarifies admissibility for a specific class of offenses. Cassell and other supporters noted the resolution requires a detailed written proffer from prosecutors explaining witnesses, expected testimony and relevance before a judge rules.

The committee recorded a motion from Representative Clancy to favorably recommend the draft resolution. On a roll call the motion passed in committee (committee tallies as recorded: yes 10, no 2). The resolution had passed the Senate unanimously in a prior session and passed the House Judiciary Committee last year with one dissent, supporters noted.

Why it matters: Supporters frame the rule as an evidence‑law update to improve juries’ access to corroborating information in crimes that typically leave few physical traces. Opponents argue it risks convicting people because prior allegations, even if unproven, can be highly prejudicial.

What comes next: The committee recommendation sends the resolution to the full legislature for consideration. If enacted, trial courts would retain judicial gatekeeping under rule 104 and rule 403 to weigh probative value against unfair prejudice before admitting prior‑act evidence.