Utah Supreme Court
Must Utah courts apply Verde factors when conducting rule 403 analysis? State v. Lowther Explained
Summary
Defendant was charged with raping four women and moved to sever the cases. The State sought to introduce testimony from three other alleged victims under the doctrine of chances to prove lack of consent in the trial for raping K.S. The district court mechanically applied Shickles factors under rule 403 and admitted the evidence, leading to defendant’s conditional guilty plea.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Lowther, the Utah Supreme Court clarified the relationship between the doctrine of chances and Utah’s evidence rules, resolving confusion about how courts should analyze prior bad acts evidence under both rules 404(b) and 403.
Background and Facts
Lowther was charged with raping four women in separate incidents. After the cases were severed, the State elected to try him first for raping K.S. The prosecution moved to introduce testimony from the three other alleged victims under the doctrine of chances to prove K.S. did not consent. The district court admitted the evidence after applying the Shickles factors in its rule 403 analysis. Lowther entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to challenge the evidentiary ruling.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether State v. Verde’s four foundational requirements for the doctrine of chances—materiality, similarity, independence, and frequency—must be applied when conducting rule 403 balancing tests, potentially displacing the traditional Shickles factors.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that Verde’s foundational requirements apply only to rule 404(b) analysis to determine whether prior bad acts evidence serves a proper, non-character purpose. These requirements do not constrain or displace other considerations in rule 403 balancing tests. Courts must follow the text of rule 403, not any mechanical application of factors. However, the court agreed the district court abused its discretion by mechanically applying Shickles factors without considering rule 403’s actual language.
Practice Implications
Practitioners should conduct separate analyses under rules 404(b) and 403. For doctrine of chances evidence, satisfy Verde’s four foundational requirements for rule 404(b) admissibility, then independently assess probative value versus unfair prejudice under rule 403’s text. Courts have discretion to consider various relevant factors, including some Verde considerations, but are not bound to any specific factor test when balancing under rule 403.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Lowther
Citation
2017 UT 34
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20150803
Date Decided
June 19, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
Verde’s four foundational requirements for the doctrine of chances apply only to rule 404(b) analysis and do not displace the Shickles factors or otherwise constrain rule 403 balancing tests.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether the court of appeals properly applied the doctrine of chances; abuse of discretion for the district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence
Practice Tip
When analyzing doctrine of chances evidence, separately address Verde’s foundational requirements for rule 404(b) admissibility, then conduct an independent rule 403 analysis using the rule’s text rather than mechanical application of any factor test.
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.