Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts admit prior rape allegations to prove lack of consent? State v. Marchet Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of rape and appealed, challenging jury instructions on mental state, claiming ineffective assistance for failure to request mistake of fact instruction, and arguing Rule 404(b) evidence from other alleged victims was improperly admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the jury was properly instructed, no ineffective assistance occurred, and the Rule 404(b) evidence was properly admitted to show lack of consent.
Analysis
In State v. Marchet, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether testimony from other alleged rape victims can be admitted to prove lack of consent in a rape prosecution, providing important guidance on Rule 404(b) evidence in sexual assault cases.
Background and Facts
Marchet was charged with raping B.F. in 2002. The State sought to introduce testimony from three other women who alleged Marchet had raped them, claiming the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show intent, plan, knowledge, and B.F.’s lack of consent. The trial court conducted extensive hearings and identified four key similarities among the alleged incidents: Marchet’s initial charm followed by persistence and physical dominance, escalation of sexual advances in his home, forceful removal of clothing after being told to stop, and penetration from behind.
Key Legal Issues
Marchet raised three primary challenges: (1) the jury instructions improperly stated the mental state required for rape conviction; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a mistake of fact instruction; and (3) the court erred in admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence from other alleged victims.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding jury instructions, the court found they properly informed jurors that Marchet must have intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engaged in nonconsensual sexual intercourse, not merely sexual intercourse. On ineffective assistance, the court determined that requesting a mistake of fact instruction would have been inconsistent with Marchet’s defense that the encounter was entirely consensual. Most significantly, the court upheld admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence, applying the Nelson-Waggoner framework requiring scrupulous examination of whether evidence serves a proper noncharacter purpose, is relevant, and survives Rule 403 balancing.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts will admit prior bad acts evidence in rape cases when it demonstrates a pattern of behavior probative of lack of consent, even without the distinctive sexual position present in Nelson-Waggoner. Defense counsel must carefully preserve objections to such evidence and focus challenges on whether the trial court conducted the required three-step analysis. The decision also demonstrates the importance of ensuring defense theories remain consistent throughout trial, as contradictory strategies can undermine claims of ineffective assistance.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Marchet
Citation
2009 UT App 205
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080186-CA
Date Decided
July 30, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of rape and mens rea, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request a mistake of fact instruction, and the court properly admitted Rule 404(b) evidence showing defendant’s pattern of behavior to prove lack of consent.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding jury instructions; abuse of discretion for admission of evidence under rule 404(b); questions of law for ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for the first time on appeal
Practice Tip
When challenging Rule 404(b) evidence, ensure objections are preserved and focus on whether the trial court engaged in the required scrupulous three-step analysis under Nelson-Waggoner.
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.