Can defendants pay restitution for consensual sex crimes in Utah? State v. Houston Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a unique question in State v. Houston: whether a defendant convicted of consensual sex crimes must pay restitution to his sexual partner. The court’s analysis provides important guidance on the boundaries of Utah’s criminal restitution statute.

Background and Facts

Houston and the complainant were former missionaries who had agreed not to engage in sexual activity before marriage. After sexual intercourse occurred, the complainant reported feeling she had not consented due to childhood trauma that left her “paralyzed.” Houston believed she had consented based on physical cues. The state charged Houston with rape and forcible sodomy, but the jury convicted him only of the lesser offenses of fornication and sodomy—crimes that involve consensual conduct.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the complainant qualified as a “victim” under Utah’s restitution statute when Houston was convicted only of consensual sex crimes. The statute excludes “coparticipants” from victim status and requires that pecuniary damages result from facts that would support civil liability.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the restitution order, holding that the jury’s verdict established no lack of consent. Because fornication explicitly requires “voluntary” conduct and the sodomy conviction did not establish non-consensual activity, the complainant was a coparticipant rather than a victim. The court emphasized that restitution requires facts supporting civil liability, which were absent given the consensual nature of the convicted offenses.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of analyzing the specific elements of charged versus convicted offenses when seeking restitution. Practitioners must carefully examine whether a conviction establishes the factual predicate for civil liability, particularly in cases involving lesser-included offenses that may not support the same damages theory as the original charges.