Court weighs admissibility and similarity standards in State v. Simpson other-acts dispute

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Simpson concerning the admissibility of other-acts testimony under Utah Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 and whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting that evidence and in the limiting instruction it gave the jury.

Defense counsel Charice Pokalski argued the trial court failed to apply the correct standard and that many of the asserted similarities between incidents were common features of sexual encounters rather than a distinctive pattern. Counsel told the panel the court “failed under rule 404 3 to weigh competing appropriate and inappropriate inferences” and that the limiting instruction given at trial did not properly explain how jurors could use the evidence to rebut a fabrication defense.

Prosecutor Daniel Boyer responded that recent Utah authority (Green/Verde) emphasizes that other-acts evidence is presumptively admissible under the plain text of the rules and that similarity and other factors go to weight rather than an automatic exclusion. Boyer argued the challenged testimony was probative to rebut fabrication and urged the appellate court to defer to the district court’s discretionary balancing except in extreme cases.

The argument centered on how to apply Utah precedent after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions and on what degree of deference the appellate court should give to a district court’s factual and discretionary determinations about similarity and prejudice. The panel thanked counsel, took the matter under advisement and said it will issue a written decision.