Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Law Pattern Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves joint resolution allowing pattern evidence in adult sexual‑assault trials, prompting defense objections
Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 8, which would align Utah evidence rules with federal practice to allow prior acts/pattern evidence in certain adult sexual‑assault prosecutions, was recommended by the committee 5–2 after prosecutors and some victims' advocates argued it helps juries see serial patterns and defenders warned of undue prejudice.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5–2 to recommend Senate Joint Resolution 8, a proposed amendment to rules governing admissibility of other‑act evidence in adult sexual‑assault prosecutions.
Judge Michael Cassell, speaking for victim service interests, described the measure as aligning Utah with federal Rule of Evidence 413‑414 practice: it would allow trial judges to admit evidence of prior similar acts by an accused when the judge finds the evidence relevant and reliable, for instance on issues of consent or pattern. Cassell noted an analogous rule has applied in child sexual‑abuse cases in Utah for years.
Prosecutors and county attorneys urged the change. Ryan McBride of the Utah County Attorney’s Office and Christopher Ballard from the Statewide Association of Prosecutors said juries are often prevented from seeing serialized patterns and that the rule would include judicial gatekeeping under the existing relevance and 403 balancing test. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said federal courts have used comparable rules for three decades without the systemic harms opponents predicted.
Defense lawyers and the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association strongly opposed the resolution. Richard Morrow, executive director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, and Mark Moffat of the Defense Lawyers Association warned the language could permit introduction of unproven allegations or prior complaints solely to show propensity, creating an impermissible risk of conviction based on past alleged conduct rather than proof of the charged offense.
Senators asked a series of questions about judicial gatekeeping, temporal proximity and evidentiary safeguards. Sponsor Senator Cullimore said judges retain a two‑step review: (1) whether there is sufficient proof to support the other‑act fact and (2) a balancing evaluation under Rule 403. After discussion the committee voted 5–2 in favor; Senators Pitcher and Ballard voted no.
Why it matters: The resolution would change how courts weigh prior‑acts evidence in certain adult sexual‑assault trials and touches on balancing probative value against prejudicial risk. Supporters say it aids juror understanding of serial offending; defenders say it risks conviction for prior allegations.
