Can a school bus driver occupy a position of special trust under Utah law? State v. Tanner Explained

In State v. Tanner, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a school bus driver can occupy a position of special trust under Utah’s forcible sexual abuse statute, rejecting both legal and factual challenges to such a determination.

Background and Facts

Defendant worked as a school bus driver responsible for transporting special education students, including a seventeen-year-old student, M.S., who had learning and memory difficulties. Over several months, defendant developed an increasingly intimate relationship with M.S., giving her gifts, having her act as a “bus aide,” and ultimately engaging in sexual touching. The relationship was discovered when police found them kissing in defendant’s vehicle in a school parking lot. Defendant was convicted of forcible sexual abuse, which required proving he occupied a position of special trust under Utah Code section 76-5-404.1(4)(h).

Key Legal Issues

Defendant raised two challenges: (1) whether school bus drivers can legally occupy positions of special trust as a matter of statutory interpretation, and (2) whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that he actually occupied such a position.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found Utah Code section 76-5-404.1(4)(h) unambiguous in defining a position of special trust as one “occupied by a person in a position of authority, who, by reason of that position is able to exercise undue influence over the victim.” The statutory list of specific positions includes “but is not limited to” enumerated roles, making it non-exclusive. The court rejected defendant’s attempt to apply ejusdem generis to limit the statute’s scope.

Regarding sufficiency, the court found evidence that defendant had authority over M.S. as her bus driver—including responsibility for her safety, disciplinary authority, and access to her personal information—and that he used this position to exercise undue influence by establishing trust, creating opportunities for private contact, and escalating to physical intimacy.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that positions of special trust determinations are highly fact-sensitive inquiries focusing on how defendants use their authority to exercise undue influence. The court emphasized that the analysis must examine the specific circumstances rather than categorical exclusions, and that various forms of authority—not just disciplinary power—can support such determinations.