When does denial of continuance prejudice a criminal defendant? State v. Peraza Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Peraza clarifies when a trial court’s denial of a continuance motion prejudices a criminal defendant’s substantial rights. This case arose on remand from the Utah Supreme Court, which corrected the burden of proof standard for demonstrating prejudice from continuance denial.

Background and Facts

Robert Peraza was charged with four counts of sodomy on a child. Twelve days before trial, Peraza requested a continuance to secure a defense expert to challenge the child’s therapy treatment, which he believed could explain her recantation patterns and increasingly detailed allegations over time. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, with no physical evidence, the case hinged entirely on the child’s credibility. The prosecution presented expert testimony explaining that recantation is common in child sexual abuse cases and doesn’t indicate the abuse didn’t occur.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Peraza was prejudiced by the denial of continuance under the correct legal standard. The Utah Supreme Court had previously clarified that when a defendant moves for continuance under common law, the defendant bears the burden of proving prejudice on appeal.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the abuse of discretion standard, finding prejudice when denial affects the defendant’s substantial rights such that there’s a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result. The court concluded Peraza met his burden because the prosecution’s unrebutted expert testimony powerfully rehabilitated the child’s credibility after extensive impeachment. Without the opportunity to present a defense expert, Peraza was handicapped in presenting his defense that the therapy influenced the child’s testimony.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that in credibility-dependent cases, expert testimony rehabilitation can be highly prejudicial when unrebutted. Practitioners should clearly articulate how proposed expert testimony would directly counter opposing experts and demonstrate specific prejudice from proceeding without such testimony. The decision also confirms that defendants bear the burden of proving prejudice from continuance denial, requiring strategic presentation of anticipated expert testimony’s importance to the defense theory.