Utah Court of Appeals
Can testimony about touching 'buttocks' support a sodomy conviction? State v. Pullman Explained
Summary
Pullman was convicted of sodomy on a child and aggravated sexual abuse based on victim’s testimony about regular inappropriate touching and attempted anal penetration over approximately one year. The court found the evidence insufficient to support the sodomy conviction because victim’s testimony about touching her ‘butt’ did not establish the required element of contact with the anus, but sufficient to support attempted sodomy.
Analysis
In State v. Pullman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a victim’s testimony about touching her “butt” was sufficient to prove the statutory elements of sodomy on a child. The case provides important guidance on the specificity required for sexual offense convictions and the admissibility of motive evidence.
Background and Facts
Donald Pullman was convicted of one count of sodomy on a child and two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child based on his victim’s testimony. The victim testified that Pullman regularly touched her breasts and buttocks over approximately one year, beginning on her twelfth birthday. Regarding the sodomy charge, she testified that Pullman “tried to take my panties off and stick his dick into my butt” but that she “pushed him away before it did.” At trial, the state also admitted testimony from Pullman’s ex-wife about his repeated requests for anal sex, which she refused.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed several issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the sodomy conviction, (2) whether a jury instruction on “touching” constituted manifest injustice, (3) whether Utah Code section 76-5-407 was unconstitutionally vague, and (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Pullman’s requests for anal sex from his wife.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court found the evidence insufficient to support the sodomy conviction. Although the victim described contact with her “buttocks,” the sodomy statute requires contact with the “anus.” The court emphasized that Utah cases have drawn a clear distinction between “anus” and “buttocks” as alternative ways to commit sexual abuse. However, the evidence was sufficient to support attempted sodomy, and the court entered judgment for that lesser included offense. The court also affirmed admission of the ex-wife’s testimony, finding it properly showed motive under Rule 404(b)—Pullman’s unfulfilled desire for anal sex provided motive to seek it elsewhere.
Practice Implications
This case underscores the importance of precise testimony in sexual offense prosecutions. Even with child victims, courts require evidence that specifically addresses the statutory elements. Defense attorneys should carefully examine whether the evidence actually proves the charged offense versus a lesser included offense. For prosecutors, the case demonstrates that motive evidence showing a defendant’s unfulfilled sexual desires may be admissible to explain why they turned to inappropriate targets.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Pullman
Citation
2013 UT App 168
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110212-CA
Date Decided
July 5, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Evidence was insufficient to support sodomy conviction but sufficient for lesser included offense of attempted sodomy, and trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s requests for anal sex from his wife to show motive.
Standard of Review
Insufficiency of evidence: review evidence and inferences in light most favorable to verdict, reverse only when evidence is sufficiently inconclusive that reasonable minds must have entertained reasonable doubt; Plain error/manifest injustice: error exists, should have been obvious to trial court, and is harmful; Constitutional challenges: correctness when preserved; Evidence admission under Rules 403 and 404(b): abuse of discretion; Ineffective assistance of counsel: question of law
Practice Tip
When prosecuting or defending child sexual abuse cases, ensure testimony specifically addresses the anatomical elements required by statute—courts will distinguish between ‘buttocks’ and ‘anus’ even in cases involving child victims.
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.