Utah Court of Appeals
Are Utah's child rape statutes unconstitutionally vague? State v. Jones Explained
Summary
Jones was convicted of child rape and other offenses after sexually abusing a victim from age eight to eleven. At trial, defense counsel objected to the child rape jury instructions, arguing that Utah Code sections 76-5-402.1 and 76-5-407(2)(b)(v) were unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because they only required touching rather than penetration.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Jones, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed constitutional challenges to Utah’s child rape statutes, providing important guidance on overbreadth and vagueness doctrines in criminal law.
Background and Facts
Jones sexually abused a victim from age eight to eleven, engaging in conduct ranging from showing pornographic images to penetration. The State charged him with multiple offenses including child rape under Utah Code section 76-5-402.1. At trial, defense counsel objected to the jury instructions, arguing that the child rape statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because section 76-5-407(2)(b)(v) requires only “touching, however slight” rather than penetration for sexual intercourse with children under fourteen.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two constitutional challenges: (1) whether the child rape statutes were overbroad by criminalizing constitutionally protected conduct, and (2) whether the statutes were unconstitutionally vague in defining the required elements.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected both challenges. On overbreadth, the court found no constitutional right to touch a child’s genitals, making the conduct clearly unprotected. For the vagueness challenge, the court held Jones lacked standing because his conduct—involving actual penetration—was clearly prohibited under any interpretation of the statute. The court emphasized that defendants who engage in clearly proscribed conduct cannot challenge statutory vagueness based on hypothetical applications to others.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that constitutional challenges require careful consideration of standing requirements. When raising vagueness challenges, practitioners must ensure their client’s conduct falls within the statute’s ambiguous scope rather than its clearly prohibited core. The decision also confirms that Utah’s approach to defining sexual intercourse in child rape cases—requiring only touching rather than penetration—passes constitutional scrutiny.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Jones
Citation
2018 UT App 110
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160522-CA
Date Decided
June 14, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Utah’s child rape statutes are neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague when considered together.
Standard of Review
Constitutional challenges to statutes present questions of law, which are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When challenging statutes for vagueness, ensure your client has standing by confirming their conduct falls within a gray area rather than clearly prohibited behavior.
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.