Can buttocks slapping support aggravated sexual abuse charges? State v. Garcia Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed whether repeated buttocks slapping accompanied by sexual comments can constitute aggravated sexual abuse of a child in State v. Garcia, 2025 UTApp 119.

Background and Facts

Garcia lived with and later married the mother of two elementary school-aged girls, Alexis and Mila. Over several years, Garcia repeatedly slapped the girls’ buttocks, made sexual comments during these incidents, and engaged in other inappropriate conduct. When Alexis was in fifth grade, Garcia began flicking her breasts and making comments about their development. Garcia also touched Alexis’s vagina under her clothes on multiple occasions. He sent Mila inappropriate text messages with sexual content. Despite the girls reporting some conduct to their mother, the behavior continued until Alexis disclosed the abuse at age fourteen.

Key Legal Issues

Garcia challenged his convictions on three grounds: (1) insufficient evidence to support convictions for the buttocks slapping counts, arguing he lacked the requisite sexual intent; (2) improper admission of expert testimony about delayed reporting of sexual abuse; and (3) plain error when the court informed the jury of offense classifications.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed all convictions. Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court held that sexual intent can be inferred from buttocks slapping when accompanied by sexual comments and making victims uncomfortable. The court distinguished Garcia’s conduct from “camaraderie” or sporting event encouragement, noting the frequency, intimate setting, sexual comments, and victims’ discomfort. For the expert testimony, the court found testimony about delayed disclosure was properly admitted as helpful to jurors, while any error regarding testimony about maintaining contact with abusers was harmless. Finally, while informing the jury of offense classifications was obvious error, Garcia failed to demonstrate prejudice given the strong evidence of guilt.

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates that courts will examine the totality of circumstances when evaluating sexual intent, including frequency, setting, accompanying statements, and victim reactions. Practitioners should carefully analyze all contextual factors rather than focusing solely on the nature of physical contact. The decision also confirms that expert testimony about delayed disclosure remains admissible when it could assist some jurors, even if the concept seems generally understood.