Archive for the ‘Utah Law’ Category

Utah Man Being Investigated for Texting While Driving Auto Accident

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Law
0comment

Police are investigating whether a Utah man was texting while driving when his car ran into three girls walking across a Midvale crosswalk.

Photo: Chris Dlugosz

Photo: Chris Dlugosz

Cell Phone Use While Driving Can be Dangerous

A new Utah law concerning teen cell phone use while driving went into effect this past Tuesday, but that particular law wouldn’t play a role in this case, since the driver is 28 years old. However, there is a Utah law that makes texting while driving illegal in this state.

A person may not use a cell phone while driving in Utah to:

• Text
• Manually access email
• Enter data by hand
• Send data, read a text or view images
• Use apps

It’s important to note that even reading a text is illegal—not just sending a text. There are some things that adults are still allowed to do with their cell phone while driving:

• Make or receive a call
• Use GPS or navigation services
• During a medical emergency
• Reporting or requesting assistance for a safety hazard
• Reporting or requesting assistance concerning a criminal activity
• When giving roadside or medical assistance
• If you are law enforcement or emergency service personnel acting in your duties
• Using hands-free or voice operated technology
• Operate a system that’s part of the vehicle

We don’t know if the man in question was driving while texting; law enforcement usually can check phone records against accident timing. He did say that he didn’t see the girls and is cooperating with police.

Potential Charges for Illegal Cell Phone Use

If you use a cell phone illegally, you may be charged with the following:

• Class C misdemeanor
• Class B misdemeanor if you cause serious bodily injury as a result of your texting, etc. or have a prior conviction under this law that occurred within the past three years

Hopefully the driver in this situation has contacted a Utah criminal defense attorney. Even if you believe you haven’t committed a crime, it’s important to have top legal counsel on your side—especially if you know you’re being investigated by the police.

There’s Still a Demand for Prostitutes in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Law
0comment

In case you weren’t one of the folks checking out the prostitutes along 1500 South State Street last week, you might as well know that the market for prostitutes in Utah is alive and well—sort of.

Six people searching for a prostitute last week discovered that the Salt Lake police are also hitting the streets, but as undercover prostitutes. Five men and one woman were arrested last Thursday after they each allegedly attempted to hire the services of a prostitute. Unfortunately for those individuals, they hit on undercover cops instead. Now, each John-to-be is facing criminal charges.

I Was Entrapped!

You may have heard of the word entrapment, but those six people probably can’t claim that as a defense in this situation. Entrapment occurs when a peace officer or a person directed by or acting in cooperation with the officer encourages the commission of a crime in order to obtain evidence to aid in the prosecution of the person being entrapped, creating an opportunity whereby the crime is likely to occur when the person wasn’t ready to commit such a crime.

Utah law specifically states that conducting yourself in a way that gives someone the opportunity to commit a crime doesn’t equal entrapment. In other words, cops can pose as prostitutes and see if anyone will take the bait without the police being in trouble.

Play it Safe; Talk to an Attorney

We want to remind you, though, that you should never take your situation at face value. Don’t automatically assume that there’s no legal defense for you, regardless of the crime you’re accused of.

Talk to a qualified Utah criminal defense attorney as soon as possible if you’ve been charged with a crime. Find an experienced attorney who understands Utah law and will work hard to provide you with an aggressive defense. Make the right call today.

Cockfighting May Become a Felony in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Law
0comment

Utah Senate Bill 52 passed the Senate yesterday and is on its way to the House to see if cockfighting will be a felony in the future.

Photo: Stefan van Bremen

Photo: Stefan van Bremen

Cruelty to Animals to Include Cockfighting

The bill amends the crime of cruelty to animals to include causing a game fowl (like a rooster) to fight with a different kind of animal or creature for amusement or gain. Senate Bill 52 would make it a third degree felony for a person to:

• Possess, keep or train game fowl that you’re planning to engage in cockfighting
• Cause game fowl to fight or injure other game fowl for amusement or gain
• Permit cockfighting on your property
• Control, aid or abet cockfighting

The new bill also makes it a class B misdemeanor to be a spectator at any cockfight.

Cockfighting and Abortion?

There was some interesting debate in the Senate yesterday prior to the bill being passed. The senator who sponsored the bill stated that this particular sport can bring gambling, alcohol and drugs with it. A senator who opposed the bill noted that it’s strange to have cockfighting as a felony in a state where aborting babies is still allowed.

Do you have an opinion on this issue? Contact your state legislator if you have strong feelings for or against cockfighting becoming a felony. After all, the people who make the laws are the folks we put in office.

Contact a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have legal questions concerning a crime you’ve been charged with, the best person to talk to is a Utah criminal defense attorney. Don’t discuss your case with police under any circumstances. Contact an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Cockfighting to Become A Felony In Utah. Thankfully Human v. Human Fights are Still Misdemeanors.

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Crimes, Utah Law, Utah Legal Definition
0comment

A bill that would make Cockfighting a Felony passed the Utah State Senate today. Luckily the Utah State legislature keep fighting between humans at a Misdemeanor level. (Participation in an ultimate fighting Match, Utah Code Annotated 76-9-705). Under Utah law, two human combatants who “use a combination of boxing, kicking, wrestling, hitting, punching or … biting” are only guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor (U.C.A. 76-9-705). Human combat is only be punishable for up to one year in jail. Fortunately, the Utah State Legislature recognizes that game fowl battles or cockfighting is more important than fighting between humans. The punishment for cockfighting is 5 times that of Human fighting (Participation in Ultimate Fighting Match). So remember if you “cause a game fowl to fight with or injure another game fowl” this behavior would be a 3rd Degree Felony punishable up to 5 years at the Utah State Prison (if Senate Bill 52 passes). However, combat between humans would only be punishable for up to one year in jail. A full copy of the Cockfighting/Game Fowl Fighting Bill is found below:

GAME FOWL FIGHTING AMENDMENTS

2013 GENERAL SESSION

STATE OF UTAH

Chief Sponsor: Gene Davis

House Sponsor: Johnny Anderson

6
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill modifies the Criminal Code regarding the fighting of animals.
10 Highlighted Provisions:
11 This bill:
12 . provides that game fowl fighting and specified acts related to game fowl fighting are
13 third degree felonies;
14 . provides that being present at a game fowl fight is a class B misdemeanor; and
15 . provides definitions and cross references.
16 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
17 None
18 Other Special Clauses:
19 None
20 Utah Code Sections Affected:
21 AMENDS:
22 76-9-301, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 292
23 76-9-301.5, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2008, Chapter 292
24 ENACTS:
25 76-9-301.3, Utah Code Annotated 1953
26
27 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
28 Section 1. Section 76-9-301 is amended to read:
29 76-9-301. Cruelty to animals.
30 (1) As used in this section:
31 (a) (i) “Abandon” means to intentionally deposit, leave, or drop off any live animal:
32 (A) without providing for the care of that animal, in accordance with accepted animal
33 husbandry practices or customary farming practices; or
34 (B) in a situation where conditions present an immediate, direct, and serious threat to
35 the life, safety, or health of the animal.
36 (ii) “Abandon” does not include returning wildlife to its natural habitat.
37 (b) (i) “Animal” means, except as provided in Subsection (1)(b)(ii), a live, nonhuman
38 vertebrate creature.
39 (ii) “Animal” does not include:
40 (A) a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature, if:
41 (I) the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature, is in
42 accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices; and
43 (II) the creature is:
44 (Aa) owned or kept by a zoological park that is accredited by, or a member of, the
45 American Zoo and Aquarium Association;
46 (Bb) kept, owned, or used for the purpose of training hunting dogs or raptors; or
47 (Cc) temporarily in the state as part of a circus or traveling exhibitor licensed by the
48 United States Department of Agriculture under 7 U.S.C. 2133;
49 (B) a live, nonhuman vertebrate creature that is owned, kept, or used for rodeo
50 purposes, if the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature, is in
51 accordance with accepted rodeo practices;
52 (C) livestock, if the conduct toward the creature, and the care provided to the creature,
53 is in accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices; or
54 (D) wildlife, as defined in Section 23-13-2 , including protected and unprotected
55 wildlife, if the conduct toward the wildlife is in accordance with lawful hunting, fishing, or
56 trapping practices or other lawful practices.
57 (c) “Companion animal” means an animal that is a domestic dog or a domestic cat.
58 (d) “Custody” means ownership, possession, or control over an animal.
59 (e) “Legal privilege” means an act that:
60 (i) is authorized by state law, including Division of Wildlife Resources rules; and
61 (ii) is not in violation of a local ordinance.
62 (f) “Livestock” means:
63 (i) domesticated:
64 (A) cattle;
65 (B) sheep;
66 (C) goats;
67 (D) turkeys;
68 (E) swine;
69 (F) equines;
70 (G) camelidae;
71 (H) ratites; or
72 (I) bison;
73 (ii) domesticated elk, as defined in Section 4-39-102 ; or
74 (iii) any domesticated nonhuman vertebrate creature, domestic furbearer, or domestic
75 poultry, raised, kept, or used for agricultural purposes.
76 (g) “Necessary food, water, care, or shelter” means the following, taking into account
77 the species, age, and physical condition of the animal:
78 (i) appropriate and essential food and water;
79 (ii) adequate protection, including appropriate shelter, against extreme weather
80 conditions; and
81 (iii) other essential care.
82 (h) “Torture” means intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical
83 pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner.
84 (2) Except as provided in Subsection (4) or (6), a person is guilty of cruelty to an
85 animal if the person, without legal privilege to do so, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or
86 with criminal negligence:
87 (a) fails to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter for an animal in the person’s
88 custody;
89 (b) abandons an animal in the person’s custody;
90 (c) injures an animal;
91 (d) causes any animal, not including a dog or a game fowl, to fight with another animal
92 of like kind for amusement or gain; or
93 (e) causes any animal, including a dog or a game fowl, to fight with a different kind of
94 animal or creature for amusement or gain.
95 (3) Except as provided in Section 76-9-301.7 , a violation of Subsection (2) is:
96 (a) a class B misdemeanor if committed intentionally or knowingly; and
97 (b) a class C misdemeanor if committed recklessly or with criminal negligence.
98 (4) A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to an animal if the person:
99 (a) tortures an animal;
100 (b) administers, or causes to be administered, poison or a poisonous substance to an
101 animal; or
102 (c) kills an animal or causes an animal to be killed without having a legal privilege to
103 do so.
104 (5) Except as provided in Subsection (6) or Section 76-9-301.7 , a violation of
105 Subsection (4) is:
106 (a) a class A misdemeanor if committed intentionally or knowingly;
107 (b) a class B misdemeanor if committed recklessly; and
108 (c) a class C misdemeanor if committed with criminal negligence.
109 (6) A person is guilty of a third degree felony if the person intentionally or knowingly
110 tortures a companion animal.
111 (7) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the conduct of the actor towards
112 the animal was:
113 (a) by a licensed veterinarian using accepted veterinary practice;
114 (b) directly related to bona fide experimentation for scientific research, provided that if
115 the animal is to be destroyed, the manner employed will not be unnecessarily cruel unless
116 directly necessary to the veterinary purpose or scientific research involved;
117 (c) permitted under Section 18-1-3 ;
118 (d) by a person who humanely destroys any animal found suffering past recovery for
119 any useful purpose; or
120 (e) by a person who humanely destroys any apparently abandoned animal found on the
121 person’s property.
122 (8) For purposes of Subsection (7)(d), before destroying the suffering animal, the
123 person who is not the owner of the animal shall obtain:
124 (a) the judgment of a veterinarian of the animal’s nonrecoverable condition;
125 (b) the judgment of two other persons called by the person to view the unrecoverable
126 condition of the animal in the person’s presence;
127 (c) the consent from the owner of the animal to the destruction of the animal; or
128 (d) a reasonable conclusion that the animal’s suffering is beyond recovery, through the
129 person’s own observation, if the person is in a location or circumstance where the person is
130 unable to contact another person.
131 (9) This section does not affect or prohibit:
132 (a) the training, instruction, and grooming of animals, if the methods used are in
133 accordance with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices;
134 (b) the use of an electronic locating or training collar by the owner of an animal for the
135 purpose of lawful animal training, lawful hunting practices, or protecting against loss of that
136 animal; or
137 (c) the lawful hunting of, fishing for, or trapping of, wildlife.
138 (10) County and municipal governments may not prohibit the use of an electronic
139 locating or training collar.
140 (11) Upon conviction under this section, the court may in its discretion, in addition to
141 other penalties:
142 (a) order the defendant to be evaluated to determine the need for psychiatric or
143 psychological counseling, to receive counseling as the court determines to be appropriate, and
144 to pay the costs of the evaluation and counseling;
145 (b) require the defendant to forfeit any rights the defendant has to the animal subjected
146 to a violation of this section and to repay the reasonable costs incurred by any person or agency
147 in caring for each animal subjected to violation of this section;
148 (c) order the defendant to no longer possess or retain custody of any animal, as
149 specified by the court, during the period of the defendant’s probation or parole or other period
150 as designated by the court; and
151 (d) order the animal to be placed for the purpose of adoption or care in the custody of a
152 county and municipal animal control agency, an animal welfare agency registered with the
153 state, sold at public auction, or humanely destroyed.
154 (12) This section does not prohibit the use of animals in lawful training.
155 (13) A veterinarian who, acting in good faith, reports a violation of this section to law
156 enforcement may not be held civilly liable for making the report.
157 Section 2. Section 76-9-301.3 is enacted to read:
158 76-9-301.3. Game fowl fighting — Training game fowl for fighting.
159 (1) As used in this section “game fowl” means any of several breeds of fowl reared or
160 used for fighting other fowl.
161 (2) It is unlawful for any person to:
162 (a) own, possess, keep, or train game fowl with the intent to engage it in fighting with
163 another game fowl;
164 (b) cause a game fowl to fight with or injure another game fowl;
165 (c) manufacture, buy, sell, trade, or possess an instrument designed to enhance the
166 ability to, or likelihood of, causing injury to a game fowl with the intent that the instrument be
167 used in game fowl fighting or game fowl training; or
168 (d) permit or allow any act that violates Subsection (2)(a), (b), or (c) on any premises
169 under the person’s charge.
170 (3) A person who violates Subsection (2) is guilty of a third degree felony.
171 (4) This section does not prohibit the lawful use of livestock by the owner, the owner’s
172 employees or agent, or any other person in the lawful custody of livestock.
173 (5) Any property, material, or device used or possessed in violation of this section is
174 subject to criminal or civil forfeiture under the procedures and substantive protections
175 established in Title 24, Chapter 1, Utah Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act.
176 Section 3. Section 76-9-301.5 is amended to read:
177 76-9-301.5. Spectator at organized animal fighting exhibitions.
178 It is unlawful for a person to knowingly be present as a spectator at any place, building,
179 or tenement where preparations are being made for an exhibition of the fighting of animals, as
180 prohibited by Subsections 76-9-301 (2)(d) and (e) or Section 76-9-301.3 , or to be present at
181 [such] an animal fighting exhibition, regardless of whether any entrance fee has been charged.
182 A person who violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Keep Your Vomit to Yourself in Utah

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Humor, Utah Law
0comment

The Utah Legislature is looking at modifying a section of the Utah Code to include keeping your vomit out of a police officer’s face unless you want to be charged with a third degree felony.

Photo: m.a.r.c.

Photo: m.a.r.c.

Propelling a Substance or Object

It is already a class A misdemeanor to propel any substance or object at a peace or police officer in Utah, but the law may soon be even more strict. You might find yourself on the wrong end of a third degree felony if the substance or object you hurl at a police officer is:

• Blood
• Urine
• Fecal matter
• An infectious agent or material carrying an infectious agent
• Vomit or a material that carries vomit
• Saliva, when the individual knows that he is infected with HIV, hepatitis B or C

and the substance or object comes into contact with the officer’s face, including eyes or mouth, or any open wound.

Additionally, you could be charged with a crime under this law as well as any another offense that is distinguishable from this particular crime.

Talk to Your Legislator

If you think that the punishment for hurling a bit of vomit doesn’t fit the crime, let your local legislator know. Remember that if you’re found guilty of a third degree felony you could go to jail or prison for up to five years.

Suck it Up and In and Call a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

The bottom line is to keep all your bodily fluids and discharges to yourself. Even if you’re sorely tempted to let it all hang out, doing so on a police officer’s face isn’t the answer. Swallow your pride—and your vomit—and don’t say a word. Make your jailhouse phone call valuable by contacting a Utah criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Let your attorney do the talking for you. It may be your best decision yet.

State v. Lamb: Utah Court of Appeals Considers Cattle Rustling Case

The Utah Court of Appeals issued an opinion this week upholding the convictions of Jeff Lamb for three counts of theft of lost property, third degree felonies under Utah Code section 76-6-407. State v. Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, Case No. 20111071-CA.

In 2010, Utah Department of Agriculture Theft Inspectors received a tip of possible cattle rustling in Ephraim, Utah and went to a nearby property to investigate. Using binoculars, the inspectors looked at the cattle on Mr. Lamb’s property and found that one of the calves did not have the Lamb branding marks. Based on this observation, the inspectors entered the first and found two other cows with different ownership markings.

Mr. Lamb challenged his convictions, arguing that the three charges should have been tried in separate trials because the charges involved different owners, different kinds of cattle, and different days when Mr. Lamb obtained them. The trial court disagreed and found that the thefts were part of a common plan or scheme because they were all obtained when Mr. Lamb was driving his herd was between ranges and they were all kept in possession for a long time “without taking reasonable measures to return them.” The court of appeals agreed with the trial court.

Mr. Lamb also argued that the inspectors viewing of his field and entry onto field violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals disagreed with Mr. Lamb and cited the United States Supreme Court cases that have found that “open fields” are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. According to the court, “An ‘open field’ need not actually even be ‘open’ or a ‘field.’ So long as it is not part of the curtilage of a home, an ‘open field’ can be a secluded field surrounded by woods, fences, chicken wire, or embankments, and entirely out of public view or access; it can even be a cave, a still, a shed, a small concrete building, a chicken coop, a hog pen, a good pen, or an open and shared parking area adjacent to or behind an apartment building.” Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, ¶ 16.

Even though you may own a piece of property, it does not mean that there is absolute right to keep the police from entering onto it. Courts looks to whether the owner has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the property when considering search challenge.

If you are under investigation or have been arrested, call an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you learn about and protect your rights.

Happy Holidays from Salt Lake Criminal Defense!

Utah Criminal Lawyer, on the topic of  Crimes, Dealing with Police, DUI in Utah, Humor, Utah Law
0comment

 

Utah Sex Offender Restrictions for Parole

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Law
0comment

In Utah, a sex offender is any person (adult or juvenile) who is required by law to be registered as a sex offender due to an offense committed against a person who is 18 years old or younger. When a sex offender is eligible for parole in Utah, there are specific locations he is restricted from visiting.

Photo: Paradigm

What are Protected Areas?

Protected areas include:

• any licensed daycare or preschool facility
• any swimming pool open to the public
• a public or private elementary or secondary school not located on the grounds of a correctional facility
• public community parks
• public playgrounds
• under certain conditions, areas 1000 feet or less from an accuser’s (of the particular sex offender) residence

In order for the last protected area listed to be truly off limits, the sex offender must be:

• on parole for a sex offense
• the accuser or his parent or guardian has requested that the offender be restricted from the area
• the offender has been notified in writing and with a physical description of the restricted area

Penalty for Visiting a Protected Area

Generally, it is a class A misdemeanor for a convicted sex offender to stray into a protected area. There are a few exceptions, however:

• The offender needs to be in a protected area to carry out specific parental duties
• When the protected area is a school building and
• It is opened and being used for a public activity and
• Not being used for a school-related function for people 18 years old or younger
• When the protected area is a licensed daycare or preschool facility and
• Is located within a building used for public purposes, services or functions besides the day care facility and the offender doesn’t stray into the preschool/daycare part of the building

Talk to a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have legal questions or concerns about any criminal case you’re involved in, whether it’s related to a sex offense or other matter, don’t wait to contact a Utah criminal defense attorney. Let your attorney guide you through the sometimes confusing legal process and help you get your life back on track. Make the right phone call today.

Utah Supreme Court Allows Sex Offender to Seek Reduction in Conviction

0comment

Utah law allows some defendant’s to ask for a reduction in the degree of their offense upon successfully completing probation. See Utah Code § 76-3-402. This law was in effect in 2005 when Mr. Howard Price Johnson pled guilty to unlawful sexual activity with a minor, a third degree felony, and enticing a minor, a class A misdemeanor. At the time of his plea, the prosecution agreed to not oppose a reduction in offense after Mr. Johnson completed probation.

While Mr. Johnson was on probation, the Utah Legislature amended the Utah reduction law to preclude reductions if the conviction “requires the person to register as a sex offender until the registration requirements . . . have expired.” The change in the law occurred in 2006 and Mr. Johnson asked for a reduction of his offense in 2008.

The issue in the case was what version of the law to apply to Mr. Johnson’s convictions–that is, could the court reduce the offense after completion of probation or would the court have to wait until Mr. Johnson completed his time as a registered sex offender. The Utah Supreme Court found that “the substantive right to seek a reduction in conviction vests at the time of initial sentencing.” State v. Johnson, 2012 UT 68.  Effectively, the right to ask for a reduction is substantive, not procedural, so the law controlling the case was the law in place at the time of sentencing.

The court remanded the case to the district court to apply the reduction statute in place in 2005 when Mr. Johnson plead guilty.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, having an experienced criminal attorney to help understand the nuances of complicated provisions of law can make a difference in the result of your case. Call a criminal defense attorney today!

 

Utah Supreme Court Changes How Prior Offenses Admitted in Court

 

The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion last week in State v. Verde that changes how trial courts will look at prior bad acts by a defendant before they are admitted at trial.Giant Gavel

The Case

In 2005, Mr. James Eric Verde was charged with the sexual abuse of a twelve-year-old child.  During the trial, the prosecution was allowed to bring in evidence of previous allegations made by other two other males against Mr. Verde. Mr. Verde was convicted and appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. In Utah, prior bad acts by a defendant are admissible so long as the prosecution can show that they are not using the evidence just to show that the defendant has a bad character and acted according to that bad character. The court of appeals found that because Mr. Verde had plead not guilty to the crime, the prosecution was allowed to bring up the prior allegations to help prove that Mr. Verde intended the sexual abuse. This is known as the “not guilty rule.”

The Utah Supreme Court Opinion

The Utah Supreme Court uniformly rejected the “not guilty rule.” The court said, “[a] not-guilty plea technically puts every element of a crime at issue” so under the “not guilty rule” prior bad acts would always be admissible to help prove some element of the crime. The court found that there needs to be more than just a not guilty plea to admit prior bad act evidence. Specifically, the court looked at what Mr. Verde’s claimed defenses were and found that he had not argued that he didn’t have the intent to commit sexual abuse–Mr. Verde had argued that he hadn’t committed the crime at all. Because of this error, the Utah Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Verde be given a new trial and the prosecution will have to try and give the trial court a different reason to admit the prior allegations of abuse.

The Doctrine of Chances

The supreme court also introduced a new way to look at prior bad acts by a defendant before admitting them at trial: the “doctrine of chances.” Under this doctrine, the more times similar events occur, the likelihood that these events are just coincidence becomes lower. So, to use the court’s example, the probability that an innocent person would be accused of sexual assault multiple times is fairly low. To help in analyzing whether prior bad acts should be admitted in a trial under the “doctrine of chances,” the supreme court told trial courts to look at: (1) what elements of the crime are disputed by the defense; (2) whether the prior acts are “roughly similar to the charged crime”; (3) whether the prior bad acts are independent of each other and the charged crime; and (4) how many times the independence acts are said to have occurred.

For the full opinion, click the link: Verde.

What this Means for Defendants

It remains to be seen how trial courts will interpret and use the doctrine of chances in future trials. Having a prior conviction or being previously accused of a criminal act can be very difficult evidence for a defendant to overcome at trial. Many defendants are not even aware that prior accusations, not just prior convictions, may be used against them in future trials. Having an experienced criminal defense attorney to make a strong argument to keep that evidence out can make a big difference!