Can Utah courts admit domestic violence evidence to rebut consent in sexual assault cases? State v. Van Oostendorp Explained

In State v. Van Oostendorp, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a forcible sodomy conviction, addressing important questions about the admissibility of domestic violence evidence under Utah Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the boundaries of consent defenses in sexual assault prosecutions.

Background and Facts

Van Oostendorp and the victim began a relationship that quickly turned abusive. The court detailed a pattern of escalating violence, including Van Oostendorp holding the victim’s head down during oral sex until she vomited, threatening her with a gun, and making death threats. The charged incident involved Van Oostendorp forcing the victim into a bathroom, urinating on her, and then committing forcible sodomy. At trial, Van Oostendorp conceded the sexual act occurred but claimed it was consensual, arguing he reasonably believed the victim consented based on their history of rough sex.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: whether the evidence was sufficient for conviction, whether the trial court properly admitted extensive prior bad acts evidence under Rules 404(b) and 403, and whether the court erred in refusing Van Oostendorp’s proposed mistake-of-fact jury instruction. The central battleground was the admissibility of domestic violence evidence to rebut the consent defense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed across all issues. Regarding the Rule 404(b) evidence, the court emphasized that when a defendant raises consent as a defense, evidence of the relationship’s abusive nature becomes highly probative. The court found the domestic violence evidence served legitimate non-character purposes: establishing the victim’s state of mind regarding consent and rebutting Van Oostendorp’s claim that he reasonably believed she consented. The court noted that evidence of threats and abuse directly responded to his defense by showing any apparent cooperation was the product of fear rather than free will.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts sexual assault defense strategy. When consent is at issue, courts will likely admit extensive evidence of domestic violence patterns under Rule 404(b). Defense counsel must carefully weigh whether asserting consent or mistake-of-fact defenses will open the door to prejudicial relationship evidence. The court’s analysis also demonstrates the declining relevance of the Shickles factors in Rule 403 analysis, emphasizing that courts should focus on the rule’s text rather than mechanical application of traditional factors.