Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when a defendant fails to marshal evidence challenging statute of limitations findings? State v. Chrisman Explained
Summary
Defendant appealed his convictions for rape of a child, rape, and forcible sodomy, arguing the statute of limitations had run on the rape of a child counts. The trial court found that no report of the offense was made to law enforcement within the required timeframe, rejecting defendant’s argument that the victim’s half-sister’s communication to police constituted such a report.
Analysis
In State v. Chrisman, the Utah Court of Appeals demonstrated the critical importance of proper marshaling when challenging trial court factual findings, even in the context of statute of limitations determinations in criminal cases.
Defendant Thomas Chrisman was convicted of multiple sex offenses and argued on appeal that the statute of limitations had expired on certain rape of a child counts. Under Utah Code section 76-1-303.5, prosecution had to commence within four years after the offense was reported to law enforcement. Chrisman contended that the victim’s half-sister told police about the abuse sometime after August 2001, which would have barred prosecution when charges were filed in May 2006.
The trial court rejected this argument, finding that despite police inquiries, the victim herself denied the abuse when initially contacted, meaning no “report of the offense” occurred for statute of limitations purposes. The court of appeals noted that challenging this factual determination required Chrisman to marshal all evidence supporting the trial court’s finding and then demonstrate clear error.
Chrisman failed spectacularly at this requirement. He made “no attempt to marshal the evidence” supporting the trial court’s finding and failed to identify key evidence, including the victim’s testimony that she never told the investigating officer about the abuse. The court applied the familiar rule that when a defendant fails to properly marshal evidence, the appellate court “presume[s] that the record supports the trial court’s factual finding.”
This case serves as a stark reminder that the marshaling requirement applies even to statute of limitations challenges that may seem purely legal in nature but depend on underlying factual determinations about when reports were made to law enforcement.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Chrisman
Citation
2011 UT App 189
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090295-CA
Date Decided
June 16, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant challenging a trial court’s factual finding regarding when the statute of limitations began to run must marshal the evidence supporting that finding and demonstrate it is clearly erroneous.
Standard of Review
Factual underpinnings of statute of limitations determinations are reviewed under the marshaling requirement where defendant must show the finding is clearly erroneous
Practice Tip
When challenging factual findings related to statute of limitations determinations, meticulously marshal all evidence supporting the trial court’s finding before arguing it was clearly erroneous, or risk having the argument dismissed as inadequately briefed.
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.