Is Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5 the exclusive method for admitting child victim statements? State v. Nunez Explained

In State v. Nunez, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.5 provides the exclusive method for admitting out-of-court statements by child victims of sexual abuse. The case arose when the State struggled with a child witness who testified poorly at trial and sought to introduce her Children’s Justice Center interview to support the charges.

Background and Facts

Nunez was charged with multiple counts of child sex abuse involving his fiancée’s eight-year-old daughter, Kiara. At trial, Kiara’s testimony was limited and failed to establish all elements of the charged conduct. Recognizing this deficiency, the prosecutor sought to introduce Kiara’s Children’s Justice Center (CJC) interview, which contained statements supporting each element of the charges. The State moved to admit the interview under Utah Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) as a prior inconsistent statement, rather than following Rule 15.5’s procedural requirements for child victim statements.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Rule 15.5 constitutes the mandatory and exclusive method for admitting out-of-court statements by child victims, or whether such statements may be admitted through other evidentiary rules when they independently qualify for admission. Nunez argued the trial court erred by not applying Rule 15.5’s procedural requirements and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that Rule 15.5 is permissive, not exclusive. Citing State v. Hoyt, the court explained that when a child victim’s out-of-court statement is independently admissible under another rule of evidence, litigants need not satisfy Rule 15.5’s requirements. Since the CJC interview was properly admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), the State was not required to comply with Rule 15.5’s procedural framework. The court also found that defense counsel’s strategic decision to avoid Rule 15.5 was reasonable, as invoking that rule might have resulted in the entire interview being admitted rather than just select portions.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling child abuse cases. When out-of-court statements by child victims qualify under traditional evidentiary rules, attorneys may choose the most advantageous admission pathway rather than being constrained by Rule 15.5’s requirements. However, practitioners should carefully consider the strategic implications, as different rules may result in different portions of evidence being admitted. The decision also reinforces that invited error doctrine can preclude appellate challenges when counsel affirmatively agrees to a trial court’s ruling.