Does Utah's sexual offense statute protect seventeen-year-olds until their eighteenth birthday? State v. Christensen Explained

In State v. Christensen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical question of statutory interpretation involving the scope of protection for minors under Utah’s sexual offense laws. The case centered on whether Utah Code section 76-5-406(11) protects seventeen-year-old victims until they turn eighteen or only until they complete their seventeenth year.

Background and Facts

The State charged Scott Christensen with three counts of rape and four counts of forcible sexual abuse involving a seventeen-year-old victim. The charges were based on Utah Code section 76-5-406(11), which makes sexual conduct without consent when “the victim is 14 years of age or older, but not older than 17” and the defendant is more than three years older and entices or coerces the victim. The trial court dismissed the charges, concluding that because the victim had passed her seventeenth birthday, she was “older than 17” and the statute did not apply.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting the phrase “not older than 17” in section 76-5-406(11). The defendant argued this meant protection ended on the seventeenth birthday, while the State contended it extended until the eighteenth birthday. The court also considered the relationship between subsection 11 and subsection 10, which protects children “younger than 18 years of age” from sexual conduct by parents and guardians.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, applying Utah Code section 76-1-106, which requires statutory construction according to “the fair import of their terms to promote justice.” The court found that the usual and accepted meaning of being “seventeen years old” is that the person has not reached their eighteenth birthday. The court noted that people typically state their age by the number of full years lived, remaining “seventeen” until turning eighteen. Legislative history confirmed this interpretation, as the sponsor explained the provision applied to “children ages fifteen to seventeen.”

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates Utah’s rejection of strict construction in criminal cases in favor of fair import interpretation. The ruling ensures consistent protection for minors across related statutory provisions and aligns with the legislature’s intent to protect minors until they reach legal majority at eighteen. Practitioners should consider the ordinary meaning of age references and legislative purpose when interpreting age-related criminal statutes.