Can Utah courts admit prior bad acts to prove intent in child sexual abuse cases? State v. Bradley Explained

In State v. Bradley, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when courts may admit prior bad acts testimony under Rule 404(b) to prove intent in child sexual abuse prosecutions. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling cases involving specific intent sex crimes.

Background and Facts

Milton Bradley was charged with aggravated sexual abuse and sodomy involving his stepchildren, A.S. and S.S. The State sought to introduce testimony from Bradley’s biological son, J.B., about similar sexual abuse Bradley had committed against him. Bradley argued this prior bad acts evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b). The trial court admitted J.B.’s testimony primarily to prove Bradley’s intent to “arouse or gratify sexual desire,” a required element under the aggravated sexual abuse statute.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether prior bad acts testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) to prove intent when the defendant claimed the alleged abuse never occurred. Bradley argued that intent wasn’t truly in dispute since his defense was complete denial. The court also addressed prosecutorial misconduct, variance between the information and trial testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the three-step Nelson-Waggoner analysis for Rule 404(b) evidence: (1) proper non-character purpose, (2) relevance under Rule 402, and (3) Rule 403 balancing. The court held that intent was properly at issue because Bradley pleaded not guilty to a specific intent crime, placing all elements in dispute. The court found J.B.’s testimony admissible to prove the required intent and to rebut Bradley’s fabrication defense. The court applied the Shickles factors and concluded the probative value substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect.

Practice Implications

This decision shows Utah courts will admit prior bad acts to prove intent in specific intent sex crimes when defendants plead not guilty. Judge Orme’s concurrence suggests defendants should consider conceding the intent element when the defense is “it never happened” to prevent admission of damaging prior acts testimony. The decision also emphasizes that Rule 404(b) evidence can serve multiple proper purposes, including rebutting fabrication defenses when different accusers have no opportunity to collaborate.