Can sexually explicit text messages be admitted to rebut voluntary intoxication in murder cases? State v. Thompson Explained

In State v. Thompson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether sexually explicit text messages sent hours before a fatal crash could be admitted to rebut a defendant’s voluntary intoxication defense in a depraved indifference murder case.

Background and Facts

Thompson was highly intoxicated when he assaulted his wife’s friend while she held his three-year-old son, then chased his wife outside and attacked a neighbor who intervened. After threatening to kill the neighbors, Thompson drove away in his pickup truck at high speed, eventually running a red light at 68 mph and crashing into multiple vehicles. The collision killed one person and seriously injured others. Thompson’s blood alcohol content was 0.22, nearly three times the legal limit.

Hours before the incident, Thompson had engaged in a sexually explicit text message conversation with a woman other than his wife. The trial court admitted these messages over Thompson’s objection, and he was convicted of depraved indifference murder. Thompson appealed, arguing the text messages were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction given his voluntary intoxication defense.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the sexually explicit text messages were properly admitted under Rules 401-403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, and (2) whether sufficient evidence supported the depraved indifference murder conviction despite Thompson’s voluntary intoxication defense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the evidentiary ruling and found the text messages were properly admitted. The messages were relevant because they showed Thompson’s mental state just hours before the crash, demonstrating his ability to engage in coherent written conversation, build on responses, recall memories, and recognize when he might have been inappropriate. This evidence was particularly probative given Thompson’s claim that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite mental state for depraved indifference murder.

Regarding the Rule 403 balancing test, the court found that while the sexually explicit content carried some prejudicial risk, this did not substantially outweigh the probative value. The court noted that other evidence about Thompson’s conduct—including assaulting someone holding his child and ramming teenagers’ car while laughing—was far more damaging to his character.

On sufficiency of evidence, the court applied the standard requiring review in the light most favorable to the verdict. The court found sufficient evidence that Thompson acted with depraved indifference by accelerating through a red light in a large truck without attempting to brake or swerve. His ability to stop at a stop sign earlier, precisely maneuver his truck to ram the teenagers’ car twice, and navigate a 90-degree curve at freeway speeds demonstrated awareness of his conduct despite his intoxication.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that courts will broadly interpret relevance when mental state is at issue. Defense counsel should anticipate that prosecutors may seek to admit seemingly unrelated communications or conduct that occurred near the time of the alleged offense if they show cognitive functioning. The case also illustrates the high bar for successful voluntary intoxication defenses—evidence of intoxication alone is insufficient if the defendant demonstrated purposeful, controlled behavior despite being under the influence.