When can Utah courts admit evidence of prior child molestation under Rule 404(c)? State v. Lintzen Explained

In State v. Lintzen, the Utah Court of Appeals examined the scope of Rule 404(c) of the Utah Rules of Evidence, which permits courts to admit evidence of prior acts of child molestation to prove a defendant’s propensity to commit such crimes.

Background and Facts

Anthony Lintzen sexually abused his stepdaughter over several years, beginning when she was in kindergarten. The abuse included various forms of sexual contact, and Lintzen also exposed her to pornographic material. The charged incident occurred when the victim was ten years old and involved digital penetration while she was sleeping. Before trial, the State moved to admit evidence of Lintzen’s prior abuse under Rule 404(c). The trial court granted the motion after conducting a thorough Shickles factor analysis.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(c), specifically: (1) whether the acts were sufficiently similar despite varying degrees of severity, (2) whether a five-to-six-year time span between acts supported admission, and (3) whether the probative value substantially outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the trial court properly applied the Shickles factors. The court distinguished cases involving different victims, emphasizing that this case involved an “ongoing course of conduct” against a single child victim. Drawing from State v. Reed, the court noted that when abuse occurs against the same victim over time, jurors “will either believe or disbelieve the testimony based on the witness’s credibility, not whether the witness asserts an act occurred three times or six.” The court also explained that under Rule 404(c), “the accused’s propensity is the reason for admission and no longer constitutes unfair prejudice.”

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Rule 404(c) permits admission of prior child molestation evidence even when the acts vary in severity and occur over extended periods, provided they constitute an ongoing course of conduct against the same victim. Defense counsel challenging such evidence must address all Shickles factors comprehensively, not just similarity and temporal proximity. Additionally, the court emphasized the preservation requirement: defendants who fail to object when circumstances change during trial (such as when victim testimony differs from pretrial statements) cannot raise these issues for the first time in a motion for new trial.