Utah Court of Appeals

What constitutes a substantial step in attempted rape cases? State v. Washington Explained

2021 UT App 114
No. 20200209-CA
November 4, 2021
Affirmed

Summary

Washington lured a woman to his home under false pretenses of employment, solicited her for sex, and when she refused, physically restrained her and attempted to throw her onto a bed while stating he would have sex with her. Following a bench trial, Washington was convicted of sexual solicitation and attempted rape.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical distinction between criminal solicitation and attempted rape in State v. Washington, clarifying when a defendant’s conduct crosses the line from mere preparation to a substantial step toward commission of rape.

Background and Facts

Washington lured the victim to his home under false pretenses of employment, then offered to pay her for sex. When she refused both his initial $200 offer and subsequent $1,000 monthly proposal, Washington’s conduct escalated. He gripped her shoulders during what appeared to be a “no hard feelings hug,” stated “I’m going to make it with you,” attempted to throw her onto a bed, and tried to prevent her escape through the front door. The victim escaped but left behind her sweatshirt in Washington’s grasp.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Washington’s actions constituted a substantial step under Utah’s attempt statute. Washington argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the attempted rape conviction, contending his conduct amounted to mere solicitation rather than attempt.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished this case from State v. Arave, where the Utah Supreme Court found no substantial step when a defendant merely solicited a child for sex but took no “additional preventive action” to restrain the victim. Here, Washington’s conduct went beyond solicitation through additional preventive actions: physically restraining the victim, attempting to throw her onto a bed, and trying to block her escape. These actions, combined with his contemporaneous statement of intent, constituted substantial steps that “strongly corroborate[d] the actor’s mental state.”

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance on the substantial step element in attempted rape cases. The court emphasized that substantial steps must transcend mere preparation and intent, requiring tangible actions toward commission of the crime. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether a defendant’s conduct includes restraining actions or other preventive measures beyond verbal solicitation. The court also reinforced that appellate challenges to ineffective assistance of counsel claims require adequate record development, including relevant hearing transcripts.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Washington

Citation

2021 UT App 114

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20200209-CA

Date Decided

November 4, 2021

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A defendant’s actions of gripping the victim’s shoulders, attempting to throw her onto a bed, and trying to prevent her escape constitute substantial steps toward commission of rape when combined with his contemporaneous statement of intent.

Standard of Review

Correctness for denial of motion for directed verdict; clear weight of the evidence for sufficiency after bench trial; question of law for ineffective assistance of counsel

Practice Tip

When challenging attempted rape convictions on substantial step grounds, carefully analyze whether the defendant’s actions go beyond mere solicitation to include additional preventive measures that prevent the victim’s escape.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Fastenal v. Labor Commission

    April 2, 2020

    The Labor Commission properly determined that repetitive operation of a semi-truck clutch for eleven hours daily over fifteen months constituted an objectively unusual or extraordinary exertion sufficient to establish legal causation for a worker’s compensation claim involving a preexisting condition.
    • Due Process
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    • |
    • Workers Compensation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Farmer

    April 24, 2025

    Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay statements under rule 804(b)(3) where corroborating circumstances did not clearly indicate trustworthiness, in denying compulsion instruction for obstructing justice where evidence lacked imminent threat, and counsel was not ineffective for failing to renew motions or request unanimity instruction where no prejudice shown.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Jury Instructions
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
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.