State ex rel. J.A.M. v. J.A.M.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180610-CA,20180610-CA |
| Citation | 470 P.3d 454 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, IN the INTEREST OF J.A.M., a Person Under Eighteen Years of Age. State of Utah, Appellee, v. J.A.M., Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Monica Maio, Marina Pena, and Monica Diaz, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Nathan H. Jack, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 The juvenile court adjudicated J.A.M. delinquent for aggravated kidnapping. On appeal, J.A.M. contends there was insufficient evidence to establish the intent to commit a sexual offense and that the court erroneously inferred that intent. We affirm.
¶2 Fifteen-year-old J.A.M. and seventeen-year-old K.G. (Victim) were at their high school after hours. The two were captured on surveillance video "hugging, kissing, and [lying] on top of each other" on the school's third floor landing. Victim testified that, during this time, she told J.A.M. to stop, "but he didn't" and he "didn't say anything." She then "tried to" push him away, "but he didn't get off" her. After approximately ten minutes, Victim said she successfully pushed J.A.M. off her, and they went downstairs to the first floor.
¶3 On the first floor, Victim went to the women's restroom, where she spent between two and ten minutes. There was no surveillance footage of the hallway near the restroom. Victim testified that, when she exited the restroom, she "saw [J.A.M.] and he had his genitals out." Specifically, Victim said she could see the "shape of his penis," which was "under his shirt" but out of his pants, and she could see "the bump," which she did not see when they were kissing on the third floor. During cross-examination, Victim maintained she could see J.A.M.’s penis "under his shirt" but not "under his pants," although she acknowledged she could not see the top of his pants.
¶4 At that point, Victim said J.A.M. "tried to grab" her from behind by placing both of his hands around her stomach. Victim "told him to stop, but he didn't." J.A.M. did not say anything as he pulled her "backwards towards the bathroom." Eventually, Victim fell and J.A.M. grabbed her feet and tried to drag her into the restroom. Victim "tried to" resist and "told him to stop" throughout the episode, which lasted approximately ten minutes before Victim was able to run away.
¶5 J.A.M. was charged in juvenile court with aggravated kidnapping on the basis that, while committing an unlawful detention, he acted with the intent to commit a sexual offense. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-302(1)(b)(vi) (LexisNexis Supp. 2019).2 The case proceeded to a bench trial, where Victim testified to the events described above.
¶6 After the State rested, J.A.M. moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State did not meet its burden of proof. Specifically, J.A.M. argued "the State ha[d not] presented any evidence of intent that would lead one to believe any of [the enumerated] crimes [that constitute a sexual offense] were going to be committed or that it was the intent to commit any of those crimes." The State opposed the motion, arguing that "intent can be implied by multiple other factors" and that J.A.M. "had pulled his privates out of his pants," tried to "drag [Victim] into a secluded area where no one else could see against her will," while Victim "repeatedly ... told him to stop." This, the State argued, was sufficient to infer J.A.M.’s "intent ... to commit a forcible sex offense ... because he was committing the unlawful detention while pulling her into the bathroom against her will, while having his genitals exposed." The court denied the motion because there was "sufficient evidence of intent to commit a sexual offense based on the only testimony [given] so far, which is that [J.A.M.’s] pants were down and he was dragging [Victim] by her feet."
¶7 After trial, the court determined "beyond a reasonable doubt that even though ... Victim got away before any sexual offense actually occurred," J.A.M. "committed the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping." The court noted Victim and J.A.M. "were engaged in sexual activity on the 3rd floor landing" of the high school, specifically "hugging, kissing, and [lying] on top of each other." After reviewing the surveillance footage, the court could not determine that this activity was nonconsensual beyond a reasonable doubt but did "not find that it matter[ed]."
And although the court recognized there were inconsistencies between the video and Victim's testimony, it found Victim credible.
¶8 Regarding the attack on the first floor, the court found J.A.M. "was waiting for" Victim as she exited the restroom and his "penis was obvious to ... Victim where it had not been obvious before." Although the court could not "find beyond a reasonable doubt whether [J.A.M.’s] pants were unbuttoned or unzipped ..., it was immediately obvious to ... Victim that [his] penis was protruding and more visible than it was before." The court also found J.A.M. "grabbed [Victim] from behind and tried to get her into the bathroom," despite her saying, "stop" and "no," and that when Victim fell, J.A.M. "grabbed her feet and tried to pull her into the bathroom" before she was able to run away.
¶9 These factual findings led the court to conclude that (1) by grabbing Victim and trying to drag her to the restroom, J.A.M. "prevented [her] from leaving the area"; (2) "[t]he outline of [J.A.M.’s] penis was visible to [Victim] and was out of his pants but covered by his shirt"; (3) the fact that "his penis was out of his pants and visible indicate[d] sexual arousal from which an intent to commit some kind of sexual offense of forcible sexual abuse can be inferred"; (4) while an inference "that rape was about to occur" was not justified, an inference "that some kind of sexual act sufficient to meet the statutory requirements [of forcible sexual abuse] was about to occur" was justified; and (5) Victim said "no" and "stop," tried to get away, and ultimately succeeded in escaping. Accordingly, the court adjudicated J.A.M. delinquent as charged. He timely appeals.
¶10 On appeal, J.A.M. concedes an unlawful detention occurred, but he contends there was insufficient evidence to conclude he had the intent to commit a sexual offense, which elevated the crime to aggravated kidnapping. "When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of evidence, we must sustain the [juvenile] court's judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re G.D.B. , 2019 UT App 29, ¶ 18, 440 P.3d 706 (quotation simplified). "However, before we can uphold a conviction it must be supported by a quantum of evidence concerning each element of the crime as charged from which the factfinder may base its conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." In re K.O. , 2010 UT App 155, ¶ 5, 238 P.3d 59 (quotation simplified).
¶11 J.A.M. also argues the juvenile court erroneously inferred that kissing and hugging on the third floor plus the visible "bump" of his penis established his intent to commit a sexual offense. "We will uphold a juvenile court's inferences unless the logic upon which their extrapolation from the evidence is based is so flawed as to render the inference clearly erroneous." In re D.M. , 2013 UT App 220, ¶ 9, 310 P.3d 741 (quotation simplified).
¶12 J.A.M. argues the juvenile court erred in crediting Victim's testimony because it was inconsistent and inherently improbable. J.A.M. claims Victim was not a credible witness because she "misrepresented the truth ... on the material issue of consent" regarding the kissing and hugging captured on surveillance video from the third floor of the high school. J.A.M. also claims Victim gave what he characterizes as inherently improbable testimony and argues the court clearly erred when it found that J.A.M.’s penis was "out of his pants and visible" when Victim had testified to only a "bump." We address these arguments in turn.
¶13 J.A.M. argues Victim "misrepresented to the juvenile court that the kissing on the third floor was [not] consensual." This, he claims, renders her entire testimony incredible. "Because of the advantaged position of the juvenile court in assessing credibility and personalities, and also due to the juvenile court judges' special training, experience, and interest in their field and devoted attention to cases within their jurisdiction, we defer to the juvenile court and afford it wide latitude." In re M.W. , 2016 UT App 217, ¶ 11, 387 P.3d 557.
¶14 At trial, Victim was confronted about inconsistencies between her testimony that the third floor kissing and hugging was nonconsensual and the events shown on the surveillance video. During cross-examination, J.A.M.’s counsel showed the surveillance video and pointed out times where it appeared Victim rubbed J.A.M.’s back and hugged him. In response, Victim agreed she hugged him but she denied she rubbed his back and maintained she was pushing him and telling him to stop throughout.
¶15 Victim also was asked to clarify whether J.A.M.’s penis was outside his pants after she exited the restroom on the first floor. She maintained she could see his penis under his shirt but over his pants, although she was unable to see the top of his pants. J.A.M.’s counsel followed up by asking, Victim merely responded, "Yes." Counsel did not follow up for clarification.
¶16 Before making its ruling, the juvenile court said it "listened to the entirety of the evidence," "reviewed [Victim's] testimony," and watched the surveillance video. In its ruling, the court addressed the inconsistencies J.A.M. highlights on appeal. Specifically, the court noted that the video...
To continue reading
Request your trial