Can jury instructions improperly emphasize victim testimony in criminal cases? State v. Dever Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue regarding proper jury instructions in State v. Dever, reversing a sodomy conviction despite sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The case demonstrates how seemingly benign jury instructions can constitute reversible error when they improperly comment on evidence.

Background and Facts

Joshua Dever was convicted of sodomy upon a child based on testimony from Faith, his ex-girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter. Faith alleged that during a weekend visit to Dever’s apartment, he removed her underwear and sexually abused her. DNA testing of Faith’s underwear revealed male DNA that did not exclude Dever, though the evidence was not conclusive. Faith’s testimony contained some inconsistencies regarding timing and details of the alleged abuse.

Key Legal Issues

Dever challenged both the sufficiency of evidence under the inherent improbability doctrine and the district court’s jury instruction stating that “[t]he testimony of a witness to a crime standing alone, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict if the testimony establishes all of the elements of the offense.” He argued this instruction improperly emphasized Faith’s testimony while suggesting other witnesses, including Dever himself, required corroborating evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the directed verdict motion, finding Faith’s testimony was not inherently improbable despite inconsistencies common in child testimony. However, the court reversed on the jury instruction issue, following persuasive authority from other jurisdictions that condemned similar “no corroboration” instructions. The court held that Instruction 19 violated the fundamental rule prohibiting judicial commentary on evidence by unduly emphasizing victim testimony and suggesting different credibility standards for different witnesses.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that jury instructions must not single out or give undue emphasis to particular evidence. Even accurate statements of law can constitute reversible error if they effectively comment on evidence or suggest differential treatment of witnesses. In credibility contests where evidence is not overwhelming, such instructions create reasonable likelihood of affecting the verdict, warranting reversal despite sufficient evidence for conviction.