Utah Court of Appeals
Can verbal propositions alone support attempted sodomy charges in Utah? State v. Arave Explained
Summary
Defendant approached an 11-year-old boy on his skateboard, blocked his path, and offered $20 to perform oral sex on him. When the child refused, defendant apologized and left. Defendant was convicted of attempted sodomy on a child after arguing the charge should be reduced to solicitation under the Shondel doctrine.
Analysis
In State v. Arave, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether verbal sexual propositions to a child, without physical contact, can constitute attempted sodomy rather than mere solicitation. The case provides important guidance on the substantial step requirement for attempt crimes and the application of the Shondel doctrine.
Background and Facts
Defendant Lonnie Arave approached 11-year-old D.B. while the child was skateboarding in their neighborhood. Arave blocked the child’s path with his bicycle, stopping about two feet in front of him. He offered D.B. $20 to let him perform oral sex and said he wanted to “lick him from head to toe.” When the child declined and appeared shaken, Arave apologized for “grossing him out” and left. D.B. went home crying and told his mother, who called police.
Key Legal Issues
Arave raised two main arguments: First, that the Shondel doctrine required reduction of his conviction because attempted sodomy and solicitation statutes contained identical elements. Second, that insufficient evidence supported the substantial step element required for attempt, as he merely made verbal requests without physical contact.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected both arguments. Regarding the Shondel doctrine, the court found the statutes were not “wholly duplicative” because attempted sodomy requires the defendant to directly attempt the crime on the victim, while criminal solicitation involves asking a third party to commit the offense. As to sufficiency, the court determined Arave’s conduct—blocking the child’s path, making specific sexual offers, and attempting persuasion with money—constituted a substantial step beyond mere preparation. The court emphasized that attempt focuses on “what the actor has already done” rather than what remains to complete the crime.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that substantial step analysis considers the totality of defendant’s actions, not just physical contact. The dissent argued for a higher threshold, but the majority’s approach reflects Utah’s adoption of the Model Penal Code standard that draws “the line further away from the final act.” Practitioners should note that Shondel doctrine claims require careful statutory comparison focusing solely on elements, not factual circumstances.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Arave
Citation
2009 UT App 278
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20070308-CA
Date Decided
September 24, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Attempted sodomy on a child and solicitation of sodomy on a child statutes are not wholly duplicative under the Shondel doctrine, and blocking a child’s path while offering money for oral sex constitutes a substantial step sufficient to support an attempted sodomy conviction.
Standard of Review
Correction-of-error standard for Shondel doctrine claims; same standard used when reviewing a jury verdict for sufficiency of evidence challenges
Practice Tip
When arguing Shondel doctrine claims, focus on statutory elements rather than defendant’s specific conduct, as only the plain language comparison between statutes determines whether charges are wholly duplicative.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.