When can Utah courts disregard witness testimony as inherently improbable? State v. LeVasseur Explained

Background and Facts

Chad LeVasseur crashed his car while making a drift video in the early morning hours. After the accident, he called his insurance company to increase his coverage, adding collision coverage and reducing his deductible. He then waited before calling police and reporting that he crashed while swerving to avoid a deer. His friend initially corroborated this false story to police but later told insurance investigators the truth about the drift video. The state charged LeVasseur with second-degree felony insurance fraud.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether the friend’s testimony was inherently improbable due to inconsistencies and whether sufficient evidence supported the conviction for knowingly submitting fraudulent information to an insurance company. LeVasseur argued that without the friend’s testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove he fabricated information about the accident.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, applying the narrow inherent improbability doctrine from State v. Robbins. The court explained that witness testimony may be disregarded as inherently improbable only when it is physically impossible or apparently false, and only when there are material inconsistencies plus no corroborating evidence. Here, while the friend’s testimony contained inconsistencies about her presence during the accident, her explanation for initially lying to protect her best friend did not “run counter to human experience.” Importantly, corroborating evidence included phone records showing the timing of calls, recordings of LeVasseur’s insurance calls, and evidence that his vehicle was equipped for drifting.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that inherent improbability challenges are “exceedingly rare” and difficult to succeed. Practitioners should understand that witness inconsistencies alone are typically insufficient—the testimony must be either physically impossible or apparently false, and there must be no corroborating evidence. The case also demonstrates how circumstantial evidence can effectively support fraud prosecutions, particularly when combined with direct witness testimony and documentary evidence like phone records and recordings.