Utah Court of Appeals
When can Utah courts disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable? State v. Skinner Explained
Summary
Skinner was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and theft by receiving stolen property after forcing an escort to perform sexual acts at gunpoint. A struggle ensued over the weapon, resulting in both parties being shot. Skinner challenged the sufficiency of evidence and argued the victim’s testimony should be disregarded as inherently improbable.
Analysis
In State v. Skinner, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the narrow circumstances under which courts may disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable, clarifying preservation requirements and the scope of corroborating evidence needed to defeat such claims.
Background and Facts
Skinner summoned an escort to his apartment and, when she objected to certain sexual acts, produced a gun and forced her to perform sexual acts without consent. During a struggle over the weapon, both parties were shot. Skinner was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of theft by receiving stolen property for possessing a stolen firearm. DNA evidence confirmed sexual contact between the parties, and the gun was identified as belonging to another person who had reported it stolen.
Key Legal Issues
On appeal, Skinner argued that the victim’s testimony should be disregarded as inherently improbable under State v. Robbins because of inconsistencies with forensic evidence regarding the shooting details. The court first addressed whether this argument was properly preserved, as Skinner had only made a general directed verdict motion at trial arguing insufficient evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court found that Skinner failed to preserve his Robbins claim because his directed verdict motion made only general assertions about insufficient evidence without specifically requesting that the victim’s testimony be disregarded as inherently improbable. The court emphasized that a Robbins claim presents a “new legal theory” distinct from a general sufficiency challenge. Under plain error review, the court held that even if the claim had been preserved, it would fail because the victim’s testimony was partially corroborated by other evidence, including DNA results confirming sexual contact and physical evidence of the shooting. The court clarified that corroborating evidence need not support every aspect of a witness’s testimony—any additional evidence supporting the verdict precludes disregarding witness testimony under Robbins.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Robbins claims require specific preservation at the trial level, as they constitute a distinct legal theory from general sufficiency of evidence challenges. Practitioners must explicitly argue that particular witness testimony should be disregarded as inherently improbable rather than making only generalized insufficiency arguments. The ruling also confirms the exceedingly narrow scope of the Robbins exception, which requires both material inconsistencies in testimony and a complete lack of any corroborating evidence.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Skinner
Citation
2020 UT App 3
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180584-CA
Date Decided
January 3, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant cannot establish plain error in the trial court’s failure to sua sponte disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable under State v. Robbins when the witness’s account is partially corroborated by other evidence, even if the corroborating evidence does not address every aspect of the witness’s testimony.
Standard of Review
When a jury verdict is challenged on the ground that the evidence is insufficient, the court reviews the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict. For claims that witness testimony is inherently improbable, the court accords deference to the trial court’s ability and opportunity to evaluate credibility and demeanor, and reviews a trial court’s decision to decline to disregard witness testimony only for clear error. Plain error review applies when issues are not preserved, requiring the appellant to show an error exists, the error should have been obvious to the trial court, and there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome absent the error.
Practice Tip
When seeking to have witness testimony disregarded as inherently improbable under State v. Robbins, specifically argue this theory in the directed verdict motion rather than making only general insufficiency arguments, as the Robbins claim requires preservation of a distinct legal theory.
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.