Can Utah courts admit evidence of prior sexual assaults under rule 404(b)? State v. Gasper Explained

Background and Facts

Aaron Gasper hosted a house party where he allegedly raped a teenage guest twice during the evening. The victim testified that she consumed alcohol provided by Gasper, became unusually tired and sick, and awoke to find Gasper sexually assaulting her. The State charged Gasper with two counts of rape and moved to admit evidence of a prior alleged sexual assault involving another woman under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. In the prior incident, Gasper allegedly used a similar pattern: providing alcohol, offering a massage as a licensed massage therapist, and sexually assaulting the victim while she was incapacitated.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Gasper’s prior alleged sexual assault under rule 404(b). The secondary issue concerned whether the court abused its discretion by sentencing Gasper to prison rather than probation after he pled guilty to forcible sexual abuse while preserving his appellate rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of the prior bad act evidence, finding it met the three-part test for rule 404(b) admissibility. First, the evidence served a genuine noncharacter purpose of showing Gasper’s intent to engage in sexual intercourse without consent. Second, the evidence was relevant because it made the victim’s lack of consent more probable. Third, the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court emphasized the striking similarities between the incidents: both involved Gasper offering massages, providing unsealed alcoholic drinks, victims becoming unusually sick and tired, and subsequent sexual assault. The court also affirmed the sentencing decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying probation.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that Utah courts will admit evidence of prior sexual assaults under rule 404(b) when the conduct shows a distinctive pattern or modus operandi. Defense counsel challenging such evidence should focus on distinguishing the alleged conduct rather than arguing general prejudice. The decision also reinforces that trial courts have broad discretion in sentencing decisions, and appellate courts will not overturn sentences absent clear abuse of discretion or failure to consider legally relevant factors.