State v. Dalton
| Decision Date | 27 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 20120477–CA.,20120477–CA. |
| Citation | 331 P.3d 1110,757 Utah Adv. Rep. 8 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Terrill DALTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Herschel Bullen, for Appellant.
Sean D. Reyes and Ryan D. Tenney, for Appellee.
1
Opinion
¶ 1 Defendant Terrill Dalton appeals from his convictions on two counts of rape, a first degree felony. We affirm.
¶ 2 Around 2004, Defendant founded his own church as a result of experiencing what he called a spiritual revelation. Defendant led his church as its president and appointed his friend, Geody Harman, to act as first counselor. The church grew to include eighty to ninety members, including close family friends and several members of Defendant's own family. Over the years, Defendant and his followers have lived in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and Montana.
¶ 3 As president, Defendant represented himself to the church members as the “Holy Spirit” and, at times, members of the church called Defendant the “Holy Spirit” or the “Holy Ghost.” Defendant taught that church doctrine required his approval, sanction, and interpretation and that Defendant served as the judge who discerned the church's doctrine. Church members understood that Defendant was the one who held “all the authority” in the church. If members did not adhere to church laws or doctrine, they faced punishments of private reprimand, public rebuke, or excommunication.
¶ 4 As part of religious life in the church, Defendant, Harman, and other members experienced “impressions.” As Harman put it, an “impression” is a feeling that prompts a person to take a beneficial action. Defendant explained impressions as “what God was telling us to do.” It was common practice for church members to discuss their impressions with Defendant so that he could judge and ensure the validity of the impressions. One important doctrine of the church, referred to as “the higher doctrine,” was “the doctrine of giving seed.” This particular doctrine involvedchurch members receiving impressions regarding with whom they should engage in sexual relations.
¶ 5 While living in Utah in the fall of 2005, Harman had an impression that he should have sex with a fifteen-year-old church member (Victim), whom Harman regularly employed to babysit his children. Harman approached Defendant to counsel with him about this impression. Defendant responded to Harman's inquiry by telling Harman to pray about it and “make sure it's what God wants.” After Harman followed these instructions, Harman approached Defendant a second time and reported that he was “still feeling the same way.” Defendant told Harman that he would speak with Victim directly and stated, “It is of God and you best go fulfill it.” Harman understood Defendant's words as “an instruction and a command from God's prophet on the earth” that Harman had “better go fulfill.”
¶ 6 When Defendant spoke to Victim about Harman's impression, Defendant told her that “God needed [her] to have sex with [Harman], [and] that [she]'d be given a blessing for it.” 3 Following this conversation, Defendant instructed Harman to approach Victim. When Harman talked to Victim and asked if she had a similar impression, Victim nodded her head and said yes. Later that week after she had finished babysitting, Harman had sex with Victim at his home. The next day, Harman reported to Defendant that “a command given by God ... was fulfilled.” Sometime later that month, Defendant also had sexual intercourse with Victim. Shortly after these incidents of abuse, Victim struggled academically and began skipping class and smoking marijuana. Victim dropped out of school within months.
¶ 7 Approximately four years later, Victim reported her allegations of abuse to the police. Defendant denied that he had had sex with Victim and that he told Victim about Harman's desire to have sex with her. Likewise, Defendant denied having told Victim that she should have sex with Harman and that she would receive a blessing for it. However, Defendant admitted in interviews with police that Harman told him about his impression that he should have sex with Victim.
¶ 8 In August 2010, Defendant was charged with two counts of rape. The first count of the information (the Information) charged Defendant with having sexual intercourse with Victim without her consent. The second count was based on accomplice liability and charged Defendant as a party to Harman's nonconsensual sexual intercourse with Victim. The Information alleged that both crimes occurred on or about September 1, 2005. Three months before trial, the State amended the information (the First Amended Information), changing the dates of the alleged offenses to having been committed “on or about January 01, 2005 through June 30, 2005.”
¶ 9 A three-day jury trial was held in March 2012. Harman and Victim both testified for the State. Harman admitted that he had sex with Victim. Harman explained that after Defendant gave Harman his permission, Harman arranged “to take care of [it]” with Victim at his home after she finished babysitting one evening. After Harman's family went to the park, Harman and Victim prayed and “both felt good about what [they were] about to do.” Victim indicated to Harman that she felt the impression again. As Harman and Victim climbed the stairs, Harman noticed that Victim's demeanor was “concerned or withdrawn.” Harman further testified that Victim then expressed reluctance and said no to him but that he assured her that they were doing “what ... God wanted [them] to do.” Harman asked Victim, “[D]o you want to do what God wants you to do?” At that point, Victim nodded yes, and Harman and Victim proceeded to have sex. Harman also testified that Defendant later told him that Defendant had been intimate with Victim on multiple occasions after Defendant had returned to Utah in the fall of 2005. Harman testified that Defendant had spent the previous two months livingin Nevada and that Defendant frequently traveled.
¶ 10 Victim testified that she had sex once with Harman and once with Defendant. Victim testified that Defendant asked her to have sex with Harman. Victim explained that although she did not want to have sex with Harman, she eventually complied with Defendant's directive because she was “told that when [she] was brought before God that [she would] need to face things.” Victim was not sure whether she told Harman that she did not want to have sex with him but remembered that Harman told her “this was what the Lord wanted.” After she and Harman had sex, Victim indicated that Defendant told her that “the Lord was pleased ... but he [wanted her] to do it again” with Defendant three times and then she “[would] get a great blessing.” Victim testified that she did not want to have sex with Defendant but, within a couple weeks, did so once.
¶ 11 One of Defendant's female relatives (Relative) also testified for the State. Relative testified that in his role as leader of the church, Defendant told her that she “needed to ... be a prostitute in a way” and “have sex with other people.” Relative testified that Defendant told her that she should have sex with him because she would “get many blessings from it” and it was “the only way that he could help [her]” with her depression. Relative stated that Defendant would “try to convince” her to have sex with him “every time he could get [her] alone.” After about three months of these conversations, Relative indicated that she had sex with Defendant around 2005 “to get it over with.” Afterward, Relative was “really uncomfortable with what had happened.” Defendant approached her several times thereafter and suggested that they have sex again to “cure [her] of this mental condition,” but Relative told him no. Defendant asked Relative “not to tell certain people” that they had sex and that if anybody did ask, she should tell them that “it happened in the spirit.” Relative testified that she came forward with her allegations in April 2011 when she heard Victim's story because it “matched [her own] story of what happened” to her.
¶ 12 Relative's sister (Sibling) also testified. Sibling testified that Defendant propositioned her several times. In particular, Sibling testified that Defendant gave her a piece of paper that indicated she should receive “seed” from “one of the two candlesticks.” Defendant explained to Sibling that “[s]eed meant sperm” and that “the spirit t[old] [him]” he was the candlestick. Sibling refused. After Sibling refused to receive Defendant's “seed” on a second occasion, she and Defendant had a four-hour argument “over [Sibling's] moral status and [her] not listening to the Lord's promptings.” Sometime later, Defendant and Harman approached Sibling together and told her that Defendant was “prompted” that Sibling “would have a child from him.” Sibling resisted all of Defendant's advances.
¶ 13 At trial, Defendant sought to pursue the theory that Victim was motivated to make the abuse allegations in order to obtain money for drugs. The defense called Victim's younger sister (Sister) as its first witness. Defense counsel asked Sister on direct examination, “[B]efore [Defendant] got arrested on these charges did [Victim] ever talk to you about any allegations of sexual misconduct by [Defendant] ... or [Harman]?” Sister answered, “No.” Defense counsel then asked, “After [Defendant] got arrested did you ever talk to [Victim] about the allegations?” When Sister responded inaudibly, defense counsel followed up by asking, “When you say not really, does that mean you did but not too much?” Sister responded, “Yeah, like I didn't believe her so we didn't really ever[ ] get into talking about it.” (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel proceeded to ask Sister several more follow-up questions about whether Sister asked Victim why she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fairchild
...conviction, we will not reverse merely because one bit of evidence was tainted. See, e.g. , State v. Dalton , 2014 UT App 68, ¶¶ 30–32, 331 P.3d 1110 (declining to overturn a jury verdict on the basis that the jury heard inadmissible character evidence and determining "[t]here was abundant ......
-
Conner v. Dep't of Commerce
...requirement "applies to every claim, including constitutional questions." Id. ; see also State v. Dalton , 2014 UT App 68, ¶ 55, 331 P.3d 1110 ("The preservation requirement applies to constitutional issues."). Although Conner claims that she preserved this issue, the parts of the record ci......
-
State v. Martinez
..."does not preserve for appeal" the alternate ground of coercion under the circumstances. See State v. Dalton , 2014 UT App 68, ¶¶ 54–55, 331 P.3d 1110 (cleaned up). Martinez does not argue that Instruction 14 was coercive per se; instead, his underlying claim is that Instruction 14 was coer......
-
State v. Scott
...trial court's delivery of a [verdict-urging] instruction denied [the d]efendant a fair trial." State v. Dalton , 2014 UT App 68, ¶ 25, 331 P.3d 1110. ¶19 Scott also argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to adequately argue against the hearsay challenge an......