Utah Supreme Court
When does the invited error doctrine preclude appellate review of evidentiary rulings? State v. Ring Explained
Summary
George Ring was convicted of raping a three-year-old girl while babysitting. He appealed challenging the admission of his prior child molestation acts and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, finding the prior acts evidence was properly admitted and counsel was not ineffective.
Analysis
In State v. Ring, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the intersection of the invited error doctrine and challenges to evidentiary rulings in criminal cases involving prior bad acts evidence.
Background and Facts
George Ring was convicted of raping a three-year-old girl while he was babysitting children at his girlfriend’s apartment. During pretrial proceedings, Ring filed a motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of his prior acts of child molestation, specifically referencing the Shickles factors and emphasizing the need for examination under those factors. The State then filed its own motion seeking to admit evidence of Ring’s two prior child molestation convictions. Both parties extensively argued using each of the Shickles factors during the hearing.
Key Legal Issues
Ring raised three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred by using each of the Shickles factors to determine admissibility of prior bad acts evidence; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in admitting the prior acts evidence; and (3) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance through various alleged deficiencies.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court declined to review Ring’s first claim under the invited error doctrine, finding that Ring had affirmatively urged the district court to apply each Shickles factor. The court explained that after State v. Lucero and State v. Cuttler, proper rule 403 analysis requires courts to look primarily to rule 403’s language rather than mechanically applying each Shickles factor. However, because Ring invited the court’s error by repeatedly requesting application of the Shickles factors, appellate review was precluded.
On the merits, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the prior acts evidence, noting the significant similarities in victim age, setting, opportunity, and modus operandi. The court rejected Ring’s ineffective assistance claims, finding no deficient performance or prejudice.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that parties cannot invite trial court error and then complain about it on appeal. When challenging rule 404(c) evidence, practitioners should focus arguments on rule 403’s probative value versus unfair prejudice balancing test rather than mechanically applying outdated factor tests. The decision also clarifies the evolution away from rigid application of the Shickles factors toward a more flexible rule 403 analysis in prior bad acts determinations.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Ring
Citation
2018 UT 19
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20150526
Date Decided
May 25, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior acts of child molestation under rules 404(c) and 403, and defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
Standard of Review
Invited error doctrine (precludes plain error review); abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings; correctness for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Practice Tip
When challenging the admission of prior bad acts evidence, focus arguments on the specific language of rule 403’s probative value versus unfair prejudice balancing test rather than solely relying on the Shickles factors.
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.