Can defendants overcome victim advocate privilege to support a collusion defense? State v. Draper Explained

In State v. Draper, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about victim advocate privilege and the limits of expert testimony in sexual assault cases. The case involved Tyler Draper, who was convicted of four rape counts involving three young women from his small Utah hometown.

Background and Facts

Draper was charged with six rape counts and one aggravated assault count based on encounters with four young women he knew from Monticello and surrounding areas. The jury convicted him of four rape counts but acquitted on three charges. During pretrial proceedings, the defense sought to subpoena a victim advocate from a rape crisis center who had met with some victims. The center moved to quash the subpoena, claiming privilege under Rule 512 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues included whether communications between victims and the victim advocate were privileged, whether the trial court properly limited expert testimony about interview protocols, and whether counsel’s performance fell below constitutional standards. Draper argued the privilege should not apply because multiple people were present in some meetings and that victim advocate testimony would support a collusion defense.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reviewed privilege questions for correctness and expert testimony rulings for abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the trial court’s privilege ruling, finding Draper failed to establish prejudice. Significantly, the jury already heard extensive evidence about communications between victims and their connections to each other and the victim advocate. The court noted that if mere contact with a victim advocate could overcome privilege, “the privilege would effectively be a nullity.”

Regarding expert testimony about interview protocols, the court found no abuse of discretion in limiting testimony about CJC interviews, SANE examinations, and Code-R reports when no such evidence was presented at trial. The court also denied Draper’s Rule 23B motion for remand on various ineffective assistance claims, finding no reasonable probability of different outcomes.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that victim advocate privilege under Rule 512 provides strong protection, even when defendants assert collusion defenses. Defense attorneys must present specific, non-speculative evidence showing how victim advocate testimony would materially benefit their case beyond general claims about witness coordination. The decision also demonstrates courts’ discretion in limiting expert testimony to relevant, non-cumulative evidence actually presented at trial.