Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm under Utah's lewdness statute? State v. Miller Explained
Summary
Miller was convicted of lewdness involving a child after stepping onto his front porch partially clothed and exposing his genitals to a twelve-year-old newspaper delivery boy. Miller appealed arguing insufficient evidence to establish the conduct occurred in a public place or circumstances where he should have known his actions would cause affront or alarm.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In State v. Miller, the defendant was convicted of lewdness involving a child under Utah Code section 76-9-702.5 after stepping onto his front porch partially clothed to receive a newspaper from a twelve-year-old delivery boy. Miller emerged wearing only a shirt, with his genitals partially exposed. The victim testified he was “startled” by the encounter and reported it to his parents. At trial, Miller disputed whether he actually stepped outside, claiming he remained behind his door and only extended his arm to take the newspaper.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Miller should have known his conduct would “likely cause affront or alarm” under Utah Code section 76-9-702.5(1)(b)(ii)(A). Miller argued his front porch constituted a private place and that the circumstances were insufficient to establish the statutory requirement.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that Miller’s front porch was a private place and focused on the alternative basis for conviction. The court applied the standard that evidence is sufficient if it establishes the defendant “should have known his actions would likely cause affront or alarm,” regardless of actual intent. The court found Miller’s own testimony supported this inference, as he stated it would be “ridiculous” to step outside naked and testified that he always checked who was at his door before letting “lady friends” in. The court distinguished this from situations where nudity would be expected, such as gym locker rooms, emphasizing that adult nudity on a front porch is unexpected and would cause a child affront or alarm.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah’s lewdness statute requires only that a reasonable person “should have known” their conduct would cause affront or alarm, not actual knowledge or intent. The objective standard focuses on whether the circumstances would alert a reasonable person to the likely reaction. For practitioners defending similar cases, the decision demonstrates the difficulty of challenging sufficiency of evidence in bench trials where credibility determinations strongly favor the prosecution’s witnesses.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Miller
Citation
2017 UT App 171
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160316-CA
Date Decided
September 8, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant should have known that exposing his genitals to a child on his front porch would likely cause affront or alarm under Utah Code section 76-9-702.5(1)(b)(ii)(A).
Standard of Review
Against the clear weight of the evidence; sufficient competent evidence for each element
Practice Tip
When challenging sufficiency of evidence in bench trials, focus on whether competent evidence supports each statutory element rather than credibility determinations that appellate courts rarely overturn.
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.