Can Utah courts admit evidence of prior domestic violence incidents under Rule 404(b)? State v. Northcutt Explained

In State v. Northcutt, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may admit evidence of a defendant’s prior similar domestic violence incidents under Rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

Background and Facts: Lee Wayne Northcutt was charged with attempted murder and aggravated kidnapping after restraining his wife on a couch, covering her face with a pillow, and threatening to kill her. When she pushed the pillow away, he covered her nose and mouth with his hand. The wife escaped after breaking a window and flagging down a passing driver. Northcutt’s defense was that the incident was a misunderstanding and that any suffocation was accidental while trying to quiet his wife. Over Northcutt’s objection, the trial court allowed the State to present testimony from Northcutt’s former wife about a similar 2003 incident where he physically restrained her and made threatening comments about having access to a gun.

Key Legal Issues: The central issue was whether evidence of the prior domestic violence incident was admissible under Rule 404(b), which prohibits character evidence but allows evidence of other crimes for proper non-character purposes such as proving intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals applied the three-part test for Rule 404(b) evidence: (1) proper non-character purpose, (2) relevance under Rule 402, and (3) probative value versus unfair prejudice under Rule 403. The court found the evidence was offered for proper purposes—to impeach Northcutt’s testimony and counter his claims of accident and lack of intent. The testimony was relevant because it made Northcutt’s intent to harm more probable. Using the Shickles factors for Rule 403 analysis, the court noted that while the State had substantial other evidence and alternative proof was available, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the testimony after scrupulous examination.

Practice Implications: This decision demonstrates Utah courts’ willingness to admit prior similar acts evidence in domestic violence cases when defendants claim accident or mistake. Practitioners should carefully analyze all Shickles factors, emphasizing those favoring exclusion, particularly when the prosecution has ample alternative evidence to prove the contested elements.