Can courts consider victim statements when determining force for sex offender registry removal? State v. Thompson Explained

In State v. Thompson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether district courts may consider victim statements when determining if an offense involved force or coercion for sex offender registry removal purposes under Utah Code section 77-41-105(3)(c)(iii)(A).

Background and Facts

Thompson pled guilty in 2007 to sexual abuse of a child when he was 19 years old. His plea was based on his version of events, which described touching the victim’s genitals but omitted any force or coercion. However, the victim’s written statement alleged that Thompson called her names, pushed her onto a bed hard enough to make her head hit the wall, and raped her. After completing his sentence and being on the sex offender registry for over 10 years, Thompson sought removal under a statute allowing offenders under 21 whose crimes did not involve force or coercion to be removed after 10 years.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the district court properly considered the victim’s statement when determining if Thompson’s offense involved force or coercion, or whether it should have relied solely on the plea agreement facts. Thompson also argued the court committed plain error by accepting the prosecutor’s misstatement that child sex abuse statutes do not contain force elements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly considered all materials in the record, including the victim’s statement. The court emphasized that plea agreements reflecting negotiated facts for sentencing purposes do not constrain courts from considering other record evidence when making post-sentencing determinations required by statute. Regarding the plain error claim, the court found no prejudice because even without the prosecutor’s misstatement, the court would have reached the same conclusion based on the victim’s statement alleging force.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that courts conducting force or coercion determinations for registry removal are not limited to plea agreement facts but may examine the entire case record. Practitioners should ensure all record materials support their client’s position, as victim statements and other evidence remain relevant even when inconsistent with negotiated plea facts.